Confirmed Minutes of the 84th Meeting of the Advisory Council on the Environment held on 23 April 2001 at 2:30 p.m.

Present:

In Attendance:

Mr. Kim SALKELD	Deputy Secretary (B), Environment and Food Bureau (EFB) (DS(B)/EFB)
Mr. Thomas CHOW	Deputy Secretary (C), EFB (DS(C)/EFB)
Mr. Rob LAW	Director of Environmental Protection (DEP)
Mr. Raymond CHIU	Assistant Director (Technical Services), Planning Department (Plan D) (AD(TS)/Plan D)
Mr. C C LAY	Assistant Director (Conservation), Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) (AD(Cons)/AFCD)
Dr. Constance CHAN	Assistant Director of Health
Mrs. Pauline LING	Chief Information Officer, EFB
Ms. Polly LEUNG	Principal Information Officer, Environmental Protection Department (EPD)
Miss Petula POON	Chief Executive Officer (B), EFB
Ms. Cora SO	Executive Officer (B), EFB

In Attendance for Agenda Item 4

Mr. Raymond WONG	Chief Town Planner (Sub-region), Plan D (CTP(SR)/Plan D)
Mr. Andrew LAM	City Planning Consultants Ltd. (CPC)
Mr. Lok YAN	Binnie Black & Veatch HK Ltd. (BBV) (BBV(1))
Mr. Marc	SMITH-EVANS BBV (BBV(2))
Ms. Mary	FELLEY BBV (BBV(3))
Mr. James	WORTHINGTON ACL Asia Ltd. (ACL)

In Attendance for Agenda Item 5&6

Mr. Elvis AU	Assistant Director (Environmental Assessment & Noise), EPD (AD(EA)/EPD)
Mr. C L WONG	Principal Environmental Protection Officer (Noise Management & Policy), EPD (PEPO(NP)/EPD)

In Attendance for Agenda Item 7

Mr. C L WONG

Mr. W C MOK

Principal Environmental Protection Officer (Motor Vehicle Emissions), EPD (PEPO(MV)/EPD)

*************************

Agenda Item 1 : Confirmation of Minutes of the 83rd Meeting held on 26 March 2001 Members noted the proposed amendments which were tabled. The Chairman said that the draft minutes would be confirmed subject to the amendments tabled and comment made by Mr. Benny Wong who was on leave. [Post-meeting notes : Mr. Benny Wong confirmed that he had no amendment to the draft.] Agenda Item 2 : Matters Arising Para. 25 : Timetable for the work of the monitoring group on HATS
Agenda Item 2 : Matters Arising Para. 25 : Timetable for the work of the monitoring group on HATS 2. DS(B)/EFB thanked the Council for sending a letter to the Legislative Council (LegCo) supporting the proposal of the Bureau to conduct trials and tests as recommended by the International Review Panel. He said that the discussion of the Public Works Subcommittee (PWSC) on the Government's funding request had been postponed to 25 April 2001. Subject to endorsement by the PWSC, the Finance Committee would consider our funding request on 11 May 2001. Meetings of the monitoring group would be held after funding for the proposal was secured and the timetable would be circulated to Members once it was ready. Para. 28 : Information paper on the work of the Guangdong-HongKong Joint Working Group on Sustainable Development and Environmental Protection	EFB
3. DS(C)/EFB said the draft paper was being finalized and would be circulated to Members in about two weeks' time. Para. 30 : Report on the Hazard Assessment Study Update of the Ma Wan Channel 4. Members noted that a copy of the report was circulated on 9 April 2001. They had no comment on it. Visit to Macau 5. The Chairman reported that he and another five Members visited Macau on 3 April 2001. They were received by the Environment Council, the Provisional Municipal Council of Macau and the Provisional Municipal Council of the Islands. He was impressed by the amount of work done by the Environment Council which only had 10 appointed members and eight staff. The Environment Council published multilingual (Chinese, Portuguese and some English) environmental publications and put a lot of efforts in environmental education. Unlike ACE, the Environment Council was not involved in any environmental impact assessment system but it maintained close contact with EPD and learnt from Hong Kong's experience in environmental work. 6. A Member said that he was impressed by the operation of the incinerator in Macau. He noted that the operator of the incinerator had difficulty in measuring the level of dioxin emission and in quantifying it. There had never been any monitoring authority t require such action. 7. A Member said that he had benefited a lot from the publications of the Environment Council. He commended the close collaboration between Macau and the Mainland on environmental initiatives of the Pearl River Region. 8. A Member pointed out that the siting of the incinerator was far from satisfactory. It reflected the inadequacy of relying on the initiatives of individual government departments and the importance to establish a proper authority on environmental matters. 9. The Chairman said that he had raised with the President of the Executive Committee of the Environment Council that the Council might consider sending a representative to sit on ACE meetings as an observer to facilitate exchange of views and experience. He asked the Administration to give some thoughts to the idea. A Member concurred with the Chairman and said that by establishing the relationship, we could learn from each other. Brief Biography of Members 10. The Chairman said that the Secretariat had circulated the brief biography of Members which he hoped would help Members know each other better. Visit to Europe 11. The Chairman referred to the proposed itinerary and said on second thought that it would not be a good idea to visit France in August during their holiday season as he had proposed. As the visit would be limited to about five working days, Members might have to cut down the number of cities to three or four. He informed the meeting that according to Prof. Lam Kin-che, it would be worthwhile visiting the Sewage Treatment Plant in Manchester which adopted the Biological Aerated Filters technology. 12. A Member said that if Members should visit Manchester, it might be worthwhile to check on the vacuum diesel exhaust system installed at the bus stations as well.	EFB
13. In reply to a Member's question, the Chairman clarified that the proposed dates were not yet fixed. He was also not optimistic in visiting all five proposed cities within nine days. Three cities would seem optimal. He requested the Secretariat to circulate a reply slip for Members to indicate their preferred dates and cities. DS(B)/EFB said that to facilitate preparation, Members might indicate preferred dates starting from late June to early September.	Secretariat
14. In reply to a Member's question, the Chairman said that it would be difficult to ask for sponsorship from airlines during peak season. He asked the Secretariat to find out the non-peak periods when the airfare would be more economical.	Secretariat
15. A Member said that it was essential to invite Government officials to join the visit so as to facilitate fruitful discussions between Members and the receiving authorities. DS(B)/EFB assured Members that officials from the Bureau and EPD would join the visit. Agenda Item 3 : Report of the 58th EIA Subcommittee Meeting (ACE Paper 11/2001) 16. A Member declared her interest as her company was the leading consultant of the Study on South East New Territories Development Strategy Review (the Study). 17. The Deputy Chairman of the EIA Subcommittee reported the major issues discussed and Members' concerns regarding the environmental impact assessment report of the Study at the last EIA Subcommittee meeting. The Chairman suggested and Members agreed to consider this item in conjunction with the next agenda item on the same subject. Agenda Item 4 : Study on South East New Territories Development Strategy Review - Draft Recommended Development Strategy (ACE Paper 14/2001) 18. The Chairman welcomed CTP(SR)/Plan D, CPC, BBV(1), (2) & (3) and ACL to the meeting. CTP(SR)/Plan D introduced the background and objective of the Study followed by a presentation by CPC on the recommendations of the Study. 19. The Chairman thanked CTP(SR)/Plan D and CPC for the presentation and said that he hoped the Administration would ensure public access to the Sai Kung shoreline, as indeed the shoreline of all of Hong Kong. 20. A Member agreed in principle the proposed land-use framework. However, he did not see any reason why visitors would park their vehicles at the proposed parking facilities provided at Sai Kung Town and Pak Tam Chung if the roads concerned were to be widened. Secondly, he pointed out that the population growth arising from new developments in South East Kowloon would increase traffic demand from that area to Sai Kung. He thought it best to provide rail-based transport and said that while large-scale railway system was ruled out in the Study due to various considerations, a light rail system would be feasible. 21. In response, CPC said that parking facilities in Sai Kung Town and Pak Tam Chung would be necessary for the convenience of visitors carrying large recreation equipment like canoes and visitors heading for the barbeque sites in the Country Park. As regards transportation mode, CPC said that in considering the feasibility of using rail-based transport, the Study had taken into account the population growth in South East Kowloon. The consultants had actually considered the feasibility of a mono-rail system. However, the conclusion was that the operation cost of a medium or high capacity railway would not be recovered even with the projected population growth in South East Kowloon. 22. A Member said a rail-based transport would obviate the need for a road-based transport system which was less environmental friendly. Another Member said that there was little doubt on the public demand of access to Sai Kung but shared that Member's views that efforts should be made to preserve Sai Kung as far as practicable. That other Member suggested extending pedestrian pathways in the area where possible and providing parking facilities at the fringe of the area to encourage visitors to go on foot. 23. In response to concerns of the two Members, CTP(SR)Plan D said that waterborne transport was a key element in the Draft Recommended Strategy (DRS) to relieve the burden on road transport. As for the latter, the strategy was to improve the existing transport network without building major infrastructure in the area so as not to damage the physical landscape and to conserve the nature environment. CPC supplemented that the Study recommended the use of ferries to provide access from central urban areas to Sai Kung. He said that given the geographical limitation of the Study area, it would be difficult to identify an alignment for rail link. He looked forward to the introduction of environment friendly road-based transport by the Government in the near future. 24. A Member said that the Council should focus on the objective of the Study, be it to make room for population growth or to convert the area into a tourist spot or both. Inevitably there would be pressure on the environment if more people were attracted to the area. At present traffic congestion could easily emerge on the single-lane Hiram's Highway, especially when accidents occurred. He therefore supported improvement works to the road network and agreed with CPC that it was impossible to build a railway in such a hilly area. 25. The Chairman said that the Study should restrict new residential developments in the area and that the geography of the area would serve as a natural constraint for tourism development. More developments should be allowed only if there was a satisfactory environmental-friendly transport system in the area. 26. A Member believed that given the limited number of undisturbed places like Sai Kung left in Hong Kong, people were naturally attracted to the area even without convenient transport. To maximize visitors' convenience while at the same time minimizing adverse impact on the environment, the consultants and planners should work out strategic locations for the proposed parking facilities. 27. A Member said that the Study area could be divided into three main sub-areas : the first from Tai Mong Tsai to High Island; the second included Clear Water Bay No.1 & 2 Beaches, golf club and Lung Ha Wan; and the third from Ho Chung to Sai Kung Town. As people did not need to go through Sai Kung to get to the first and second sub-areas, the major cause of traffic problem was related to the third one only. He felt that as far as the three sub-areas were concerned, a transport link from Ho Chung to Sai Kung would not be that essential. If that was the case, the Study could adopt a different transport strategy. CTP(SR)/Plan D responded that that Member's observation was more or less the same as the planning themes for different sub-areas proposed by the Study. CPC clarified that the need to expand the section of the Hiram's Highway from Ho Chung to Sai Kung did not arise from the recommendations of the Study. It was rather due to existing population in the area as well as the envisaged population growth in South East Kowloon and Tseung Kwan O. 28. A Member urged the Administration to explore more extensively the utilization of marine transport in the area. Another Member said that the demand for access to the area was bound to increase. He did not consider it a sustainable solution to meet the traffic demand by widening the road. In response, CTP(SR)/Plan D said that the transport issues, as well as the implications on the environment and physical character of the sub-region, had been examined comprehensively in the Study. Apart form encouraging waterborne transport, the Study also recommended the provision of park-and-enjoy facilities at suitable locations, strengthening public transport connections between Sai Kung and the main interchanges at Tseung Kwan O and Ma On Shan. Provision of environmental-friendly transport to the countryside was also suggested. 29. A Member said that at present no private vehicles, except those with a license, could go beyond the gate at Pak Tam Chung. The provision of park & ride facilities could allow more visitors to go to the barbeque and recreation sites. CPC said that they had examined Mr. Poon's suggestion but the decision would rest with the Administration. 30. In reply to a Member's enquiry, ACL said that the Landscape Protection Areas (LPA) in the Tourism and Recreation Framework of the Study were areas of high landscape value recommended for the Government's consideration to provide statutory or other kinds of protection. Furthermore, LPAs were separation zones between urban and rural areas and experience showed that those zones were easily subject to pollution and damage. That Member indicated that the Conservancy Association supported the concept of LPA. 31. A Member asked how the proposed artificial beach to the south of Clear Water Bay beaches would be made. In response, CPC said that currently that part of the beach was a rocky beach and they proposed to pave it with sand so as to extend the existing beaches. In reply to Dr. Ng's follow up question, CPC said that if any works were required to create the beach, they would provide small water break or discharge point to channel the water that came out from the creeks on the rocks. 32. A Member noted that the consultants had recommended the protection of a number of mangrove sites. He urged them to consider including the mangrove habitats in Wong Yi Chau, Wong Chuk Wan, Kei Ling Ha Hoi, Sham Chung and Lai Chi Chong. He had reservations on the proposal to open up High Island Reservoir for water sports for fear of causing water pollution. Another Member also had reservations on opening up the reservoir because it might destroy the landscape. 33. In response to that Member's first comment, BBV(3) said that Sham Chong and Lai Chi Chung were outside the Study area. They were highlighted for conservation consideration because they fell within the "Area of Concern" of the Study. As for Kei Ling Ha Hoi, they were outside the Study area and the "Area of Concern". Finally, Wong Yi Chau and Wong Chuk Wan were within Port Shelter area and were recommended for conservation. 34. On that Member's second comment, CPC said that the proposal for water recreation in High Island Reservoir was a long term one subject to further feasibility studies, and therefore unlikely to be pursued in the foreseeable future. However, as it was envisaged that the demand for water sports in open water bodies in the area would increase, and so would the risk of accidents, they therefore considered that opening up the large water body in the reservoir could be explored. BBV(2) assured that Member that activities in the reservoir would hardly worsen the water quality because with that size of a water body, it was almost impossible for any pollutant to affect the water quality. Besides, the water would be thoroughly treated before it was consumed as potable water. Countries like the USA and the UK even had mandatory rules requiring the opening up of reservoirs for recreation purpose. Referring to that other Member's concern on landscaping, BBV(2) said that they were not proposing any construction of major recreation facilities along the shoreline except small buildings like a sailing club. 35. A Member was concerned about the cultural difference between people in Hong Kong and other countries and felt that the proposal should be put to the public for consultation. CTP(SR)/Plan D said that the comments they received from the public on this proposal were similar to some of the views of Members. They would certainly consider all views received before finalizing the Recommended Strategy. Furthermore, the various proposals would still be subject to detailed studies. 36. A Member said that an alternative for utilizing the reservoir would be to enhance it as a wetland. He said that enhancement in that respect might simply involve changes in the management scheme.	Secretariat
37. In reply to a Member's question, CTP(SR)Plan D said that the area to the north of the Study area was covered by the North East New Territories (NENT) Development Strategy which was formulated a few years ago. The current Study had taken into account the recommended development strategy of the NENT study. He undertook to send a copy of the NENT development plan to Mr. Yip after the meeting. 38. A Member appreciated that this was a broad-brushed plan but apparently some of the individual projects within the Study area would be exempted from the EIA Ordinance, thus avoiding statutory scrutiny. For example, in Tai Long Wan and Sharp Island which were of high conservation value, the Study recommended the building of research/education facility and water sports and land based recreation facilities respectively. She would like to see those proposals removed from the final strategy or else the Administration should ensure that those projects would be subject to EIA process. Another observation was that 172 ha. of land were allocated to existing or committed village environ. The majority of the villages were not served properly by sewers. She was worried that water pollution problem in the area would aggravate and therefore urged the Administration to seriously consider reviewing the small house policy and come up with a decision as soon as possible. 39. The Chairman concurred with a Member's proposal regarding the small house policy. AD(TS)/Plan D said that the policy was under review by the Planning and Lands Bureau (PLB). Upon completion of the review, PLB would consult the public on the findings and recommendations. With the consent of Members, the Chairman requested putting on record that the Council urged the Administration to expedite the review of the small house policy. 40. The Chairman asked whether Members had any comments on the DRS with regard to marine conservation and marine parks and said that it would be helpful if the Administration could keep the Council informed of the position of marine conservation.	Plan D
41. A Member said that the World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong was of the opinion that other than the Shelter Island which was proposed for designation as Marine Park, probably there were other areas of higher conservation value that merited designation. With regard to the Chairman's comments on marine parks, a Member said that the Marine Parks Committee of the Country and Marine Parks Board would receive a briefing by Dr. Denise McCorry of the Swire Institute of Marine Science of University of Hong Kong. Dr. McCorry had conducted a comprehensive survey on the eastern waters of Hong Kong. That Member undertook to liaise with Dr. McCorry to line up a briefing for ACE. 42. A Member said that the Ninepin Group was an important habitat for seabirds and he suggested protecting the coastal areas of that Island. BBV(2) said that they had looked at all coastal areas in the Study area and considered that Ninepin Group did not need statutory protection due to its remote location. Another consideration was that it was not under threat at present. Nonetheless, the DRS recommended to keep in view that island. 43. A Member queried the reason for prohibiting trawling in Port Shelter, Long Ke Wan and Tai Long Wan because in his view there was not much to protect in those places. In response, BBV(2) said that the three places were the most important water resources in Hong Kong in terms of marine conservation. Since the biggest threat to such resources were over-fishing, he supported AFCD's proposal to designate those areas as Fisheries Protection Areas. 44. A Member disagreed with the consultants' view and said that the major cause of fish kills was pollution from waste water entering those areas. The Chairman appreciated that Member's concern about waste water and said that actions to improve water quality and prohibit over-fishing should be undertaken in parallel to achieve maximum benefits for the marine environment. 45. On the Chairman's question about the next step of the Study, CTP(SR)/Plan D said that they were now assessing all the comments received from the consultation exercise, before arriving at a final recommended development strategy. The recommendations in the final development strategy would be taken into account in the Action Area Plan and the preparation of district plans for further consultation. 46. The Chairman thanked the presentation team for attending the meeting. After the presentation team had left the meeting, a Member said she was confused as to why Plan D consulted both the EIA Subcommittee and the Council at the same time when the EIA Subcommittee did not have dissenting views on the Study. Another Member said that he believed that Plan D might be keen in obtaining the views of the Council on the Study. Agenda Item 5 : Proposed Additional "Designated Areas" Under the Noise Control Ordinance (ACE Paper 12/2001) 47. The Chairman welcomed AD(EA)/EPD and PEPO(NP)/EPD to the meeting. AD(EA)/EPD briefed Members on the proposal. 48. A Member supported the proposal and suggested that Government should draw up guiding principles for designating "Designated Areas" to ensure consistency of future review exercise. AD(EA)/EPD said that EPD had established clear principles for such designation, e.g. the Designated Areas must already be occupied or would take in population within three years. 49. In reply to questions from the Chairman and a Member, AD(EA)/EPD said that there were no prescribed criteria on population density and that "Designated Areas" could also include areas with low-rise sensitive developments. 50. A Member noted in the paper that "Designated Areas" referred to densely populated areas and sought clarification on how the word "densely" was defined. AD(EA)/EPD said that the Noise Control Ordinance did not provide a definition for "densely populated areas". It was a criterion adopted in 1996 and as the years went by, other factors such as sensitivity to noise pollution were also taken into account. DEP said that they would consider providing a definition for "Designated Areas" in future review of the Ordinance. 51. In reply to enquiry from a Member, AD(EA)/EPD confirmed that the buffer between "Designated Areas" and other areas would be taken into account in delineating the boundary of the "Designated Areas". 52. Members had no further comments and endorsed the proposal. Agenda Item 6 : Proposed Amendments to the Noise Control Ordinance, Cap 400 (ACE Paper 16/2001) 53. AD(EA)/EPD briefed Members on the amendment proposal. 54. A Member noted that the Hong Kong Construction Association objected to the proposal in 1999 as it considered that holding the directors personally liable would not be effective because subcontractors or individual workers committing the offences would not be held liable. He asked whether that was still the case. AD(EA)/EPD explained that the authority could prosecute the subcontractors as well if there was sufficient evidence. However, he admitted that EPD often had difficulties in gathering sufficient information to prosecute the subcontractors. 55. The Chairman noted that under the proposal, a director of a body corporate would receive a warning letter from the Director of Environmental Protection upon the first offence of the corporate body and would be prosecuted upon the second prosecution of the corporate body. He was concerned over the fairness of this arrangement in case the body corporate had mitigated the first offence but was subsequently prosecuted against a different offence. In this regard, DEP said that it was not a question of whether the offences were caused by the same kind of machine or activity, but a question of poor management. In fact, such problems mainly arose from construction sites where contractors/developers continued their construction works over weekends without permission.	That Member
56. Upon request from the Chairman, AD(EA)/EPD agreed to circulate detailed amendments to Members for reference. DS(C)/EFB said the Council needed to focus on the principles only as the LegCo Bills Committee would examine the amendment bill in detail. The Chairman agreed and said that the Council should look at the proposed mechanism under which the new system would work instead of the wording in the amendment bill. 57. A Member asked whether Government departments fell within the definition of "body corporate". AD(EA)/EPD said that Government departments were also bound by the Ordinance but non-compliance, if any, would be reported to the Chief Secretary. 58. A Member supported the proposal in principle but asked how effective the reporting system would be and through what channel could members of the public report an offence. AD(EA)/EPD said that the public could make use of the complaint hotline publicized from time to time. DEP supplemented that the major front-line enforcement rested with the Police because most of the offences occurred at night and the Police was in a better position to respond quickly after normal office hours. The Police and EPD had close liaison and even carried out joint operations. 59. The Chairman concluded that the Council fully supported the proposal. Agenda Item 7 : Proposed Amendment to Air Pollution Control (Vehicle Design Standards)(Emission) Regulations - Euro III Emission Standards for Newly Registered Motor Vehicles (ACE Paper 13/2001) 60. The Chairman welcomed PEPO(MV)/EPD to the meeting. PEPO(MV)/EPD gave a brief introduction on the proposed amendment. 61. The Chairman welcomed the proposal but would like to know when the Administration would decide on the way forward to replacing existing diesel light buses with alternative-fuel vehicles. DS(C)/EPD said that the monitoring committee looking after the trial of alternative-fuel light buses was finalizing the trial report. He anticipated that a decision on the way forward would be made in 2001. 62. A Member said that the Motor Traders' Association (MTA) had close liaison with EPD in dealing with the proposal. He was pleased to report that recently three European manufacturers would produce 16-seater public light buses which could meet Euro III standards. Some European manufacturers were in fact offering vehicles which met Euro IV standards. He envisaged that the 16-seater public light buses would be made available to Hong Kong later this year. 63. In response to a Member's remarks on the problem of producing vehicles, PEPO(MV)/EPD clarified that the approval process of the vehicle model type actually started one year before manufacturing in Europe. Hence, there should be sufficient lead-time for vehicles which met the Euro III emission requirements and local vehicle requirements to be made available to Hong Kong. As regards the availability of European-made public light buses which met the standards, PEPO(MV)/EPD said that as the trade in Hong Kong currently relied mostly on Japanese brands, they might be reluctant to switch to European public light buses that quickly. 64. A Member asked whether the Administration had considered a mixture of engines. He would also like to know the merits of switching from diesel to LPG in terms of emissions. 65. In reply to a Member's above questions, DS(C)/EPD said that the Administration had not decided on the way forward but he anticipated that a decision would be made within 2001. As for the merits of switching from diesel to LPG, PEPO(MV)/EPD said that the emission from LPG contained nearly no particulates and less than half of the nitrogen oxides from diesel. 66. A Member alerted Members that the manufacturer of green diesel was launching a lobbying exercise claiming that LPG was dirtier than green diesel. He said that though the claim was not true, it was persuasive. The Chairman said that the Council must not be the target of lobbying and asked Members to exercise caution if they were individually lobbied.	EPD
67. A Member said that diesel taxis was a major source of air pollution and currently there were around 8,000 LPG taxis on the road. He expected that there should be improvement on road-side air quality and felt that the progress should be made known to the public. DEP said that the introduction of ultra-low sulphur diesel and particulate traps had made a big contribution to the improvement of air quality as demonstrated by a drop in the number of smoky vehicles spotted, a reduction in the number of days recorded with high readings of air pollution index. He undertook to prepare an information paper on the present position for Members' reference. 68. The Council supported the proposal. Agenda Item 8 : Any Other Business	EPD
69. A Member noted in some news reports that the Government intended to substantially realign the southern section of Route 10 which the Council endorsed with conditions in 1999 and asked for confirmation from the Administration. The Chairman asked the Secretariat to check with the relevant authority and then circulate the information to Members. Agenda Item 9 : Date of Next Meeting 70. The next meeting was scheduled for 28 May 2001. ACE Secretariat May 2001	Secretariat