15. A Member suggested that, apart
from using quieter vehicle engines and restricting bus routes,
the project proponent should erect noise barriers to further
reduce the traffic noise impact. The Chairman said
that the Council had discussed the lack of provisions in existing
ordinances to abate traffic noise exceedances. The Administration
had already implemented an on-going scheme to address noise
impacts of existing roads. He asked the Secretariat to provide
a copy of the past ACE paper on the subject for that Member's
reference.(Post-meeting notes : ACE Paper 39/2000 on Measures
to Address Noise Impact of Existing Roads was sent to that
Member on 28 September 2001)
16. A Member said that the traffic
volume in Hong Kong was already at an alarming level. Endorsing
another bus depot facility would be indirectly encouraging
more buses on the road. He therefore asked whether it would
be possible for the Citybus to share KMB's depots in nearby
area. In response, the Chairman said that the need
for the depot was outside the remit of the Council and endorsing
the EIA report did not imply that the Council accepted the
need for the project. He personally felt that it was difficult
for the two bus companies to share depot facilities. However,
he appreciated Mr. Lau's concern and said that it might be
useful to line up a meeting with the Transport Advisory Committee
(TAC) to express the Council's views on traffic volume in
future.
17. In response to that Member's follow- up
question, The EIA Subcommittee Chairman said that the
project proponent had already obtained land for the depot.
18. A Member informed the meeting that
being also a member of TAC, he was aware that the Council
and TAC considered transport projects in different perspectives.
TAC would assess transport projects in the context of meeting
public demand for transportation without causing congestion.
Environmental impact was apparently not TAC's major concern.
19. The Chairman proposed and Members
agreed to endorse the EIA report with the condition recommended
by the Subcommittee.
Agenda Item 4 : Promoting Prevention
and Recovery of Domestic Waste
(ACE Paper 36/2001)
20. The Chairman welcomed PAS(B)2/EFB
and AD(WF)/EPD to the meeting. PAS(B)2/EFB briefed
Members on the Government's initiatives to further promote
prevention and recovery of domestic waste. 21. The Chairman
asked, on behalf of two Members, about the timeframe of the
landfill charging scheme and whether the Administration would
consider offering employment subsidy to workers engaged in
waste recovery and recycling operations so as to alleviate
the unemployment situation as well as to make the industry
more commercially viable.
22. In response, PAS(B)2/EFB said that
as stated in paragraph 24 of the paper, the Administration
had been consulting the relevant trades on landfill charging
and would consult the Council on the details of the proposed
scheme probably within the year. As regards subsidy to the
trade, PAS(B)2/EFB said that the objective of the initiatives
was to promote prevention and recovery of domestic waste rather
than to create job opportunities. That said, she envisaged
that some of the measures would help create jobs. For example,
the processing of the increased amount of waste collected
might demand a bigger workforce in the industry.
23. The Chairman recalled that last
year there were news reports about dumping at landfills of
waste that had been collected for recycling. He asked how
the Administration would ensure that the waste collected would
be recycled. In reply, PAS(B)2/EFB said that for recovery
of papers, plastics and aluminium cans, contractors concerned
were required to provide documentary proofs that the waste
collected had been properly transferred to recyclers. In addition,
the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department would conduct
spot checks on contractors. Proponents of projects funded
by the Environment and Conservation Fund (ECF) would also
be required to provide similar proofs. On the alleged dumping
of waste collected, PAS(B)2/EFB clarified that there
was no evidence for large-scale dumping of separated waste
which was intended for recycling. If there were such cases,
EPD staff manning the landfill gates would have spotted on
site. The Chairman suggested that the allegations be
clarified.
24. A Member cautioned that to avoid
dumping of recyclables collected, the Government should ensure
that there were sufficient outlets for those materials, particularly
as the amount collected was expected to increase. In response,
PAS(B)2/EFB confirmed that the waste recycling/processing
industries had spare capacities to handle 20% to 30% more
waste using its existing workforce.
25. Pointing out that projects supported by
the ECF were mainly research projects, a Member asked
whether there were guidelines for ECF to give more weight
to waste prevention and recovery programmes. Another Member
shared the same concern and suggested that ECF should make
clear statements in this regard so as to attract potential
applicants. In response, PAS(B)2/EFB clarified that
the ECF would support both research and educational/community
involvement projects. In fact, a larger proportion had been
spent on educational and community involvement projects in
the past few years. The Administration would discuss with
the ECF Committee on the means to ensure that the $100 million
could be used largely for waste prevention/recovery programmes
in the coming years.
26. On the point of government leadership,
a Member suggested reminding the Town Planning Board
Secretariat to reduce paper consumption as a considerable
quantity of bulky reports was often re-issued to Board members
when discussion of any item was postponed to subsequent meetings.
(Post meeting note : The Town Planning Board
Secretariat had in fact carried out a review of the paper
consumption problem last year. Apart from asking Members to
leave behind the reports on cases of deferment, the Secretariat
will collect the reports on all rejected s.16 applications
and objections not upheld and save them for future meetings/reviews/objection
hearings. This will reduce the number of reports required
from applicants/objectors. Nevertheless, the Secretariat will
further review the practice to see if further improvement
can be made.)
27. A Member was concerned that neither
the Council nor the Waste Reduction Committee (WRC) were informed
of the package of initiatives before the Government announced
it in public. She also considered it more appropriate for
the WRC to vet and approve applications for ECF because many
community groups were concerned that the Environmental Campaign
Committee (ECC) might get the bulk of the Fund. In addition,
she suggested maximizing the use of refuse transfer stations
by allowing temporary storage of recyclables therein during
non-operation hours. Finally, she believed that Government's
efforts should focus on waste reduction at source rather than
exploring for more landfills.
28. In response to that Member' s first question,
PAS(B)2/EFB said that the initiatives had mostly arisen
from past discussions at the ACE and WRC. The Bureau had issued
letters to members of the two organizations briefing them
on the details of the package on the same day of the announcement.
As regards allocation of ECF, PAS(B)2/EFB assured the
meeting that each funding application would be considered
on its own merits. As the ECC was responsible for organizing
territory wide campaigns, it would unlikely be involved in
community-based waste recycling projects. Instead, it would
assist the ECF Committee in vetting funding applications and
monitoring the progress of funded projects. In the past few
months, a number of such community projects, including some
from green groups, had been funded.
29. As for refuse transfer stations, PAS(B)2/EFB
said that most of the stations operated throughout the day.
Nonetheless, where space was available, EPD would examine
the feasibility of utilizing the space for waste recovery
purpose. To facilitate waste separation and recovery, FEHD
had placed waste separation bins in 40 refuse collection points,
and would increase the number to 130 in the next few months.
PAS(B)2/EFB agreed that the top priority should be
waste reduction at source. However, given the fact that the
capacity of the existing landfills would run out in 10 to
15 years' time and that there were always non-recyclable waste
and it would take about 10 years to build a landfill, the
Government had to plan ahead and start identifying possible
sites for landfills.
30. A Member said that, partly due
to high land costs, the cost of waste recycling in Hong Kong
was high. He asked whether the Government had considered co-operating
with the Mainland on waste recycling. PAS(B)2/EFB replied
that the Administration had close liaison with the Mainland
authorities At present, primary processing of the recyclables
collected was mostly carried out in Hong Kong. However, the
re-manufacturing process was normally carried out in the Mainland.
31. A Member asked whether the Basel
Convention restricted Hong Kong from exporting batteries to
developing countries where there should be markets for such
materials. AD(WF)/EPD said that batteries were classified
as chemical waste and according to the Basel Convention, they
could only be processed by qualified recycling plants. At
the moment there was no such plant in developing countries.
In the meantime, the Government was trying to promote the
recycling of mobile phone batteries and had initially obtained
co-operation from mobile phone manufacturers. It was hoped
that there would be some progress in batteries recycling early
next year.
32. The Chairman considered that Hong
Kong would be in a better position to co-operate with the
Mainland if the recyclables could be reused as raw materials.
He also suggested that the Government should consider subsidizing
export of recyclables by savings in landfill costs.
33. A Member commended the Government's
initiatives, in particular in developing procurement guidelines
that would encourage waste prevention and recycling. However,
he reckoned that there was still room for the use of subsidy
as economic instruments. He looked forward to the implementation
of the landfill charging scheme because one third of the waste
disposed of every year came from construction and demolition
projects. He suggested that the Council should impress upon
the LegCo Panel on Environmental Affairs on the need and urgency
of the landfill-charging scheme when Members met them later.
34. In response to that Member's comments,
PAS(B)2/EFB said that direct subsidy might not be conducive
to the long-term growth of the recycling industry. Nevertheless,
the new measures in encouraging and facilitating recycling
should bring about business opportunities for the industry.
The availability of both long-term and short-term land should
also help foster the development of the industry.
35. A Member said according to her
discussion with two recycling operators, what they needed
the most was temporary storage space near their factories.
The proposed Recovery Park in Tuen Mun Area 38 would be too
far away for them and would increase the operating costs.
They were also concerned about berthing charges and would
like the Government to consider providing convenient barging
facilities. 36. In response, PAS(B)2/EFB said that apart from
the proposed Recovery Park, the Government would continue
to provide short-term tenancy sites to waste collectors. As
regards barging facilities, the Recovery Park would have sea
frontage and could thus provide berthing facilities solely
for the use of the recycling industry.
37. A Member pointed out that the decrease
in the price of waste papers, wooden chips and paper pulp
had discouraged the development of paper recycling trade in
Hong Kong. Another Member said that the Tsing Yi Chemical
Waste Treatment Plant was already a precedent case of Government
providing direct subsidy to waste treatment operators.
38. In response to Members' comments, AD(WF)/EPD
said that the Government had established very close contacts
with waste collectors and was fully aware of the operation
and the difficulties encountered by the industry. On the previous
Member's point, AD(WF)/EPD said that the price of papers
fluctuated in the world market. Many imported waste papers
were recycled in Asia. Since the recycling market in Hong
Kong was relatively small, competition with Asian recycling
operators was unavoidable.
39. The Chairman concluded that the
initiatives were well received and were a big step towards
the right direction in reducing waste. The Council fully supported
the Government's new initiatives and urged for early introduction
of landfill charging. He suggested that Members pass their
further comments, if any, to the Secretariat for onward submission
to the Bureau.
Agenda Item 5 : Revised Administrative
Procedures on the Statutory Gazetting of Public Works Projects
(ACE Paper 38/2001)
40. The Chairman welcomed DS(PR)/WB
and CAS(PM)/WB to the meeting. DS(PR)/WB briefed Members
on the revised procedures.
41. The Chairman said that a Member
had indicated his support for the new procedures as long as
works would not commence before the EIAO process was duly
completed with the EIA report approved and the required environmental
permit issued.
42. A Member said that based on his
experience, only a very small percentage of EIA reports submitted
for ACE's consideration were controversial, and for those
few cases, the problem often laid with inadequate consideration
of alternative alignments/options. He said that the disadvantage
of gazetting a project in parallel with EIA process was that
project proponents might become reluctant to revise the project
at a later stage even if the results of the EIA were unsatisfactory.
He therefore suggested that project proponents should consider
briefing the EIA Subcommittee on alternative alignments/options
before conducting the EIA study so that views of the Subcommittee
could be taken into account before they invested too much
time and resources into an alternative.
43. DS(PR)/WB said that the purpose
of the revised procedures was to speed up the public works
programme. When informing works departments of the new procedures,
his Bureau would state clearly that the departments would
need to revise their project and re-gazette it if such changes
were considered necessary as a result of the EIA process.
As suggested by Members, they would encourage works departments
to seek views from the Council as early as possible.
44. A Member suggested that, since
there was likelihood that a gazetted project would be revised
subsequently to gazetting, public works projects should be
divided into categories and only those which were unlikely
to be amended should be allowed for earlier gazettal. DS(PR)/WB
assured Members that project proponents would adopt the revised
procedures only if there was such a need and would do so only
after due consideration including the risk of re-gazetting.
45. A Member said that some issues
of concern were often not identified during preliminary assessment.
He therefore considered it imprudent to gazette public works
projects in parallel with the EIA process. DS(PR)/WB
said that at the early project inception stage, there were
already plenty of opportunities for identifying issues for
the EIA study. He emphasized that normally parallel gazettal
was only expected to be made when the EIA study was in progress
by which time major environmental concerns should have been
identified.
46. A Member proposed that a list of
projects to be gazetted in advance of completion of EIA study
be made available to the Council so that Members would have
an opportunity to identify potential problems. The Chairman,
however, disagreed and said that the onus should be on the
project proponent to sound out the Council of any potential
problems rather than the Council taking the lead.
47. A Member welcomed the revised procedures
which would expedite the public works programme and indirectly
enhance the competitiveness of Hong Kong. Notwithstanding
that, he felt that there was still room to further shorten
the lead-time for completion of public works projects. DS(PR)/WB
said that Works Bureau had introduced various measures over
the years to streamline the procedures and had reduced the
pre-construction lead-time from six to four years. They would
continue to adopt measures to expedite public works projects
without undermining the integrity of the EIA process.
48. In response to a Member's question on
how EPD could help to speed up the EIA process, DEP
said that the EIA process was not considered long compared
to the whole timeframe of a public works project. Most parts
of the EIA process were already carried out in parallel with
other procedures. The EIA Ordinance stipulated time limits
for public consultation of the project profile and EIA report
of a designated project, and for the Authority to respond
and take further steps. He was unwilling to cut short the
consultation period. Instead, the department had been endeavoring
to respond before the statutory time limit but sometimes it
took time to consult AFCD and other relevant parties. EPD
had been exploring whether the Authority could participate
at an earlier stage, say before the statutory EIA process
began, and hence prevent project proponents from proceeding
with projects where there were unresolved environmental impacts.
However, he noted that the most controversial issue was usually
in relation to the ecological impact of a project which was
very difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. He believed
that the situation would improve when a more systematic ecological
database of Hong Kong was available. In a nutshell, he considered
that enhanced communication between EPD, AFCD and works departments
in the early planning stages would help speed up the EIA process.
49. A Member said that since the implementation
of the EIA Ordinance in 1998, the average consultation time
with ACE was 47 days out of the 60-day statutory limit. He
agreed with DEP that the earlier the dialogue between relevant
parties, the greater the possibility of working out solutions
for problems identified.
50. A Member echoed the points made
by DEP and another Member. She considered that until a comprehensive
conservation policy was in place, the safest way to protect
the environment from incompatible development was to examine
the project in detail and plug every gap of uncertainty therein.
This might mean lodging objections to gazettes that could
only be resolved after completion of the EIA process. She
remained skeptical of a shortened process, and therefore had
reservations on the proposed revisions.
51. A Member said that there were cases
where the EIA process was lengthened due to the lack of information
provided. Project proponents could help speed up the process
by presenting EIA reports holistically, in particular by including
the cumulative impacts of other projects in the vicinity.
She asked who would decide which projects could be gazetted
in parallel with the EIA process and whether criteria would
be set for making such decisions.
52. A Member said that Works Bureau/works
departments should be responsible for deciding which project
could adopt the revised procedures. He did not think that
the ACE should give comments on projects before the submission
of EIA reports because that would give the impression that
ACE supported certain projects when the EIA study had yet
to complete. He reckoned that the EIA Ordinance had sufficient
safeguards to prevent problematic projects from proceeding
as works of a designated project could not start without a
valid environmental permit.
53. In reply to Members' comments, DS(PR)/WB
said that they would urge works departments to work closely
with EPD and AFCD during the project inception stage and throughout
the process to identify and address environmental concerns
as early as possible. He said that Works Bureau would ensure
that projects impinging upon environmentally sensitive areas
would be handled very carefully.
54. A Member said that although he
accepted what DS(PR)/WB presented at the meeting, he had reservation
on the paper. There was nothing in writing of the points made
by him at the meeting. DS(C)/EFB said that what DS(PR)/WB
said at the meeting would be properly recorded in the minutes.
Works Bureau had made an undertaking that works departments
would take into account comments from EPD and AFCD and consider
very carefully whether to opt for early gazettal. They would
consider carefully if early gazettal would shorten the pre-construction
lead time or whether it would likely be counter-productive
if the likelihood of subsequent revisions were high. He suggested
that Works Bureau should revise the relevant Technical Circular
to encourage works departments to brief the ACE on initial
EIA findings as and when appropriate. DS(PR)/WB agreed.
55. The Chairman concluded that the
Council agreed with the revised administrative procedures
and urged project proponents to keep EPD, AFCD and the Council
informed of issues deserving their attention at early stages.
Two Members registered their reservation on the revised
procedures.
Agenda Item 6 : Shenzhen Western Corridor
and Deep Bay Link
(ACE Paper 37/2001)
56. The Chairman welcomed PAS/TB and
her team to the meeting. PAS/TB introduced the background
of the proposed new boundary crossing followed by a detailed
presentation of the proposed alignment of the crossing and
link roads by AD/OAP.
57. The Chairman suggested that Transport
Bureau (TB) should arrange a visit for Members to study the
sites involved in the project so that Members could gain a
better understanding about the project and the environmental
issues concerned. PAS/TB agreed.
[The Chairman handed over the chair to Prof.
Lam Kin-che (the Acting Chairman) and left the meeting at
this juncture due to other commitments.]
58. The Acting Chairman recalled that
when the paper on cross border link was submitted to the EIA
Subcommittee a few years ago, the project proponent said that
the EIA of the project would be conducted in two phases, the
first being the study on alignments and options. He noted
that the findings of that study were not included in the paper
and asked if TB could provide such details to Members.
|