20. Mr. Thomas Chow informed the meeting
that the Bureau would invite the consultant and subject officers
of EPD to brief Members on the study in detail at a future
meeting.
21. A Member welcomed the joint initiatives
to improve the regional air quality. She asked whether the
study had considered the issues of cross-boundary traffic
planning and emissions from aircrafts and marine vessels.
To improve local air quality, she suggested that more thought
should be given to controlling idling engines and empty buses
running on roads; better planning on pedestrianization; urban
and building design; and tree planting.
22. In response, Mrs. Yam said that
the consultant had put forward the recommended measures on
the basis of effectiveness and technical feasibility. Vehicle
emissions from cross-boundary traffic would be greatly reduced
after implementing the recommended measures on tightening
the emission standard. On emissions from marine vessels, the
Government did examine the issue but considered it too complex
an area to tackle with marginal benefits, as it would touch
on the regulation of international shipping. The Transport
Department had cut down the number of bus routes going through
Central, and franchised bus companies had been deploying more
environmentally friendly buses on those routes. As regards
greening, she chaired a co-ordinating committee on greening
and substantial improvement could be seen in the landscape
of urban areas.
23. A Member said that there was no
doubt that the technical aspect of the initiatives could be
overcome, but he was not optimistic about the time to be taken
by the Guangdong authority to reduce industrial emissions.
Even with the support of the Central and Provincial Governments,
he had experienced difficulty in persuading some cement plants
in the rural areas of Guangdong to switch to a more environmentally
friendly technology.
24. In response to that Member's comments,
Mrs. Yam said that despite anticipated difficulties,
the Guangdong Provincial Government was committed to achieving
improvements. With a stringent joint monitoring mechanism,
the action plan would be carried out effectively.
25. In response to the Chairman's enquiry,
Mrs. Yam said that the dates of the Joint Working Group
meetings were publicized through the media. The paper could
not be circulated to Members earlier because the study report
and the way forward were only endorsed at a meeting held that
morning. The Bureau would keep the Council informed of the
progress of the action plan in future.
26. To ensure the success of the action plan,
a Member suggested that the green groups should help
arouse public awareness on regional air quality and the consensus
reached between the two Governments so that there would be
a high degree of public scrutiny and support from the community.
Another Member informed the meeting that the green
groups had been working on that front and would continue to
do so.
27. A Member commented that one effective
way to arouse public awareness was to keep them informed of
the situation. He asked whether the air quality monitoring
data of the Guangdong side were available to the public. In
response, Mrs. Yam said that the expert group to be
set up would consider the point raised.
28. A Member noted that the Executive
Summary contained a lot of information on emissions and emphasised
their compliance with the Air Quality Objectives or other
equivalent standards. He considered it more useful if the
relationship between the concentration of such emissions and
the effects on human health could be studied and established.
Another Member concurred with that Member's viewpoint
and asked whether the impacts of emissions on public health
could be incorporated in the monitoring mechanism.
29. Mrs. Yam thanked the two Members
for their suggestions. Priority would be accorded to achieving
the emission reductions as recommended in the study. Other
aspects such as the incorporation of the impact on public
health into the monitoring system could be examined in due
course.
30. The Chairman informed the meeting
that the Hong Kong University of Science & Technology had
recently held a conference on water quality. He hoped that
the Administration would make reference to the publications
and materials of the conference in planning water quality
improvement work. In response, Mrs. Yam said that one
of the expert groups set up under the Joint Working Group
was responsible for examining regional water quality. She
anticipated that water quality would be the next major area
that the Joint Working Group would work on.
Agenda Item 3 : Opening up of ACE meetings
to the public
(ACE Paper 6/2002)
31. Ms. Jessie Wong briefed Members
on the paper.
32. The Chairman suggested setting
aside the physical constraints of the meeting venue, and focusing
the discussion on the merits or otherwise of opening up the
meetings of the Council to the public. He said that the issues
considered by the Council could be broadly divided into two
categories, viz. presentations and discussion items (e.g.
EIA reports). The first category might not attract much public
interest. The second category involved interactive deliberations
between Members and proponents of designated projects that
might have direct impact on the environment. He was therefore
of the view that consideration might be given to opening up
some of the meetings of the EIA Subcommittee to the public.
33. A Member said that the Council
was an advisory group. Discussion during meetings should be
conducted in a frank manner. It was possible that issues and
viewpoints that might be construed as defamatory at open meetings
would be raised during meetings. The quality of the discussion
would be compromised if meetings were to be opened to the
public.
34. A Member said that at the beginning
of each EIA Subcommittee meeting, there were bound to be different
views on the EIA report under discussion. It was therefore
important that there was a proper meeting environment for
those views to be mediated and resolved through discussion.
He was worried that opening Subcommittee meetings to the public
would restrict the room for negotiation and result in more
lobbying on individual Members before the meeting. Thus he
preferred maintaining the status quo for Subcommittee meetings.
On the other hand, he did not see the reason not to allow
the public to sit in the meetings of the full Council when
the Subcommittee's recommendations were considered and the
final decision regarding an EIA report was made.
35. A Member shared the viewpoints
of both the Chairman and that Member and suggested that the
EIA Subcommittee Chairman could decide on which part of the
meeting should be closed and which part could be opened.
36. A Member said that the ultimate
function of the Council was to serve the community. Since
the issues raised at Council meetings were related to the
livelihood and the well being of the community, Members' deliberations
on such matters should be made in a transparent manner. Also,
the pressure of public scrutiny would expedite development
projects.
37. A Member believed that opening
up meetings to the public would achieve an educational function,
as the public would notice how divergent views eventually
came to a consensus. Furthermore, it would give the public
an opportunity to better understand the work of the Council.
She quoted the Country and Marine Parks Board as an example
and said that after opening up the Board meetings to the public,
the media was better informed of the issues under discussion
and as a result there was higher accuracy of reporting on
those issues. Knowing that they were responsible for what
they said at meetings, the Board members were also more prudent
when expressing views and making comments. Though normal meetings
were open to the public, the Country and Marine Parks Board
did reserve the right to have closed-door discussion when
necessary.
38. A Member shared that Member's views
and said that the best approach of public education was to
let them hear different sides of an issue and go through the
process of deliberation. Such an approach would win support
from the community. That said, she agreed that the Council
could discuss certain issues behind closed-door but there
should be clear criteria to follow.
39. A Member appreciated the merits
of opening up meetings to the public and agreed that transparency
was important. However, he considered that the Council had
adopted sufficient measures to enhance transparency, e.g.
briefing the press after each Council meeting and uploading
the minutes on the internet. He shared Prof. Hedley's concern
that opening up the meetings would compromise the quality
of discussion. Members would be hesitant in making certain
observations that might provoke challenges from the public
or the media. In addition, he was not comfortable with the
quality and the standard of local media and had doubts about
their objectivity in reporting. He preferred maintaining the
status quo. Another Member agreed with that Member's
views on the objectivity of media reporting.
40. A Member considered that the role
of the Council as perceived by the Government was an important
consideration when deciding whether meetings should be open
to the public. As far as the legal obligation of the Council
under the EIA Ordinance was concerned, Subcommittee meetings
on discussing EIA reports should be open because they were
part of the public participation process. On the other hand,
if the advisory role of the Council was similar to that of
the Central Policy Unit, then the Council could follow the
latter's practice in not disclosing the exchange of views
on issues at the preliminary stage. That said, he reminded
Members that under the new accountability system, the role
and functions of government advisory boards and committees
would be reviewed. It was therefore doubtful whether it was
an appropriate time for the Council to make a decision now
on the opening up issue.
41. Mrs. Yam confirmed that under the
accountability system, the new Secretary would review the
function and modus operandi of advisory bodies operating within
his/her Bureau's remit.
42. A Member agreed with a previous
Member and added that the uncertainty about the remit of the
Council on Sustainable Development was another point to support
deferring the decision until there was a clearer picture of
the new administrative structure. At the present stage, he
shared the view of two other Members that opening up meetings
to the public would compromise the quality of discussion.
43. A Member said it was understandable
that in a democratic community like Hong Kong, the public
would expect more transparency during the public decision-making
process. However, apart from the public and the media, there
were radical groups on environmental matters. The Council
should note the potential disorder of conduct during meetings
if those groups would petition to the Council when sensitive
subjects were debated.
44. A Member commented that in a way
opening up Council meetings to the public was commendable.
However, the general public would not be as interested in
environmental matters as the press. Hence, it would likely
be the case that only the press would sit in Council meetings.
As such, the chance of public education was slim. He also
echoed the viewpoints of two other Members about the timing
of making such a decision.
45. A Member said that most subjects
discussed at Council meetings were not confidential. The public
was aware of those issues before Council meetings. An advantage
of opening up meetings was to avoid mis-quoting other Members'
views made at meetings. On the last point, another Member
cautioned that individual Members should only disclose their
own viewpoints to the media after meetings.
46. Having regard to the divergent views of
Members and the uncertainty in the future role and functions
of the Council, the Chairman concluded that the subject
should be brought up for consideration next year. He further
suggested that the possibility of opening up meetings to the
public should be made clear to future Council Members before
they agreed to take up the appointment.
Agenda Item 4: Proposed Clinical Waste
Control Scheme
(ACE Paper 12/2002)
47 The Chairman welcomed Ms. Annie
Choi, Messrs Patrick Lei, Conrad Lam and David Ha to the meeting.
Ms. Choi briefed Members on the proposed scheme.
48. A Member declared interest since
the Hong Kong Productivity Council had been cooperating with
a company that was promoting the plasma-based technology.
49. In response to the Chairman's enquiry,
Ms. Choi said that the two Hospital Authority incinerators
would cease to operate after the implementation of the proposed
scheme.
50. A Member supported the proposed
scheme and commended that it was a big step forward in waste
management. However, the Administration should take into account
the concept of integrated waste management, particularly waste
reduction.
51. A Member noted that the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) had recently
adopted a more stringent set of standards for clinical waste
incineration. She asked how the Hong Kong standards would
compare with the new standards in the United States. She also
noted that a research conducted by the USEPA suggested that
clinical waste was more a problem of occupational hazards
than of environmental pollution. In that regard, she queried
whether it was justified to modify CWTC for the incineration
of clinical waste. She urged the Administration to explore
and consider alternative disposal technologies before jumping
to the conclusion of incineration simply because of the availability
of the CWTC.
52. In response to that Member's comments,
Ms. Choi said that the current emission standard of
dioxin in Hong Kong was 0.1 ng I-TEG/m3 which was among the
most stringent requirement in the world. The CWTC with an
average emission of 0.0075 ng I-TEG /m3 in 2001 would have
no problem in meeting that standard. Regarding alternative
technologies, the review report had covered assessment of
possible alternatives but suggested that they would either
require post-treatment land-filling or incineration, or were
not capable of killing all infectious microorganisms. Incineration
was recommended because it was by far the most proven technology
in the world for treating clinical waste.
53. A Member said that that if clinical
waste was really an issue of occupational hazard, preventive
measures like training the staff on proper handling should
be pursued instead of spending the taxpayers' money on modifying
the CWTC and incinerating the clinical waste. Following her
argument, another Member asked how the risk of dioxin
emission would compare with the risk of medical staff handling
clinical waste.
54. In response to the comments of those two
Members, Ms. Choi explained that according to the findings
of a survey carried out by the Hospital Authority, only 3%
of clinical waste contained PVC which was the major element
that would generate dioxin upon combustion. In view of the
small percentage of PVC in clinical waste and the comprehensive
pollution control devices at CWTC (such as high temperature
combustion chamber, quenching system to prevent dioxin reformation,
bag filter system, activated carbon injection system, etc.),
the risk of dioxin emission was not a major issue in the proposal.
The $51M mentioned in para. 20 of the paper was to improve
the reception and storage facilities of CWTC to handle clinical
waste rather than to upgrade CWTC which was already well equipped
to control emissions of pollutants.
55. A Member asked whether alternative
technologies and methods had been considered in the EIA report
endorsed by the Council three years ago. In response, Ms.
Choi said that the report contained the assessment of
the impact of the modification of CWTC for treating clinical
waste only. However, the review conducted by Mr. Townend had
covered alternative technologies and methods that were available.
56. Noting that the Hospital Authority generated
over half of the total quantity of clinical waste in Hong
Kong, the Chairman asked whether the Administration
would consider recovering full operating cost from the Hospital
Authority. In response, Ms. Choi said that the Administration
intended to gradually raise the fee to achieve full cost recovery.
57. A Member said that apart from PVCs,
other materials used in manufacturing medical apparatus might
contain dioxin-formation chemicals. Therefore, the Administration
should monitor the manufacturing of new plastic medical apparatus.
On that point, the Chairman reckoned that the procurement
policy of the Hospital Authority and the Department of Health
could address the problem mentioned by that Member. In response,
Ms. Choi said that the two bodies were closely involved
in the exercise. EFB and EPD would maintain close contact
with them in that regard.
58. A Member referred to the long-term
solution mentioned in the paper for treating clinical waste
and asked when such strategy would be ready. Ms. Choi
said that as the designed life of CWTC would end in 2012,
the Administration would need to review the strategy within
the decade.
59. In view of the public concern on the risk
of dioxin emission, a Member suggested that the monitoring
of dioxin emission at CWTC should be made at least once a
month. In response, Ms. Choi clarified that the emission
monitoring at CWTC was done on a monthly basis. The emission
data were available for public inspection on the internet
and were submitted to Kwai Tsing District Council for information.
60. The Chairman thanked Ms. Choi and
the presentation team for the briefing and concluded that
the Council supported the proposals. A Member registered
her reservation.
Agenda Item 5: Ecological Surveys and
Database
(ACE Paper 13/2002)
61. The Chairman welcomed Dr. P M So
to the meeting. Mr. C C Lay and Dr. So briefed
Members on the details of the ecological surveys and the database.
62. In response to the Chairman's question,
Mr. Lay said that the database when completed would
be available on the internet for inspection by the public
free of charge.
63. A Member, on behalf of Conservancy
Association and the Hong Kong Bird Watching Society, welcomed
the initiative. He asked whether the surveys and the maintenance
of the database would require additional resources from Government.
In response, Mr. Lay said that resources had been earmarked
for the proposed exercise from 2002-03 to 2005-06. Whilst
some surveys would be conducted by existing AFCD staff, additional
posts would be created to oversee the consultancy studies,
manage the surveys and supervise the contractors.
64. In response to that Member's enquiry,
Mr. Lay said that the degree of details of the database
would be comparable to those in major developed countries.
65. A Member welcomed the initiative
as the database would be useful in mapping conservation strategy
as well as facilitating the EIA process. He suggested that
AFCD should update the database on a regular basis and make
it a long-term product.
66. The Chairman noted that the proposed
database was not very comprehensive as some species groups
such as beetles were not included. He asked whether the findings
from surveys conducted by other organizations could be incorporated
into the database. In response, Mr. Lay explained that
the present proposal was not an academic exercise, it was
rather a tool to generate information that would be useful
in making decisions on nature conservation matters. Therefore,
only species commonly used as indicators of the ecological
value of a site would be included in the survey programme.
The database could be expanded to incorporate information
of additional species groups as necessary.
67. A Member welcomed the initiative.
She pointed out that as sites of conservation importance might
be identified during the surveys, the Administration should
expedite the formulation of nature conservation policy so
that those new sites could be properly protected. For formulating
the conservation programme, the locations of the habitats
or species of ecologically importance must be precise. The
proposed resolution of up to 1km2 grids seemed to be too coarse
for that purpose. Also, though the precise location of marine
species was meaningless, knowing more about their whereabouts
would be useful. Hence, marine biodiversity as well as species
outside the indicator groups should be included in the database
in future. She also emphasized the importance of having accurate
data for building up such database and asked whether AFCD
could enlist the assistance of outside experts in verifying
the data.
68. A Member concurred with that Member's
suggestion about ascertaining the precise locations of species
because that would serve the purpose of "avoidance" in the
initial planning stage of a development project. He considered
it worthwhile for the Government to invest in the database
as it might save resources required later to assess and mitigate
ecological impacts during the EIA process of designated development
projects. He made reference to a database called Heritage
Programme in the United States through which consultants and
developers could obtain information at a charge on sites that
were sensitive to developments. He suggested that whilst general
information in the proposed database could be made available
to the public free of charge, specific information should
only be provided at a charge so as to support the maintenance
of the database.
69. In response to a Member's enquiry regarding
assistance from outside experts, Mr. Lay said that
the consultants engaged in the surveys and AFCD in-house professional
staff would help verify the accuracy of the data. Relevant
local specialist organizations and tertiary institutions would
be involved as appropriate. As regards the precisions of the
location of the habitat or species, Mr. Lay advised
that surveying all the target indicator groups at 1km2 resolutions
was adequate for providing baseline information. For specific
species, e.g. individuals of rare plants, they would make
use of the Global Position System which had an accuracy of
1-2m.
70. In response to a Member's suggestion,
Mr. Lay said that some experts might not be willing
to share their expertise as it was considered their assets.
They might even be more reluctant if the information of the
database would later be made available at a charge.
71. The Chairman suggested setting
up a steering committee which would comprise all interested
stakeholders to oversee the whole exercise. In response, Mr.
Lay said that there were already 11 working groups established
within AFCD to take forward the project.
72. A Member welcomed the initiative
and looked forward to effective measures, for example, land-use
restrictions to preserve ecologically sensitive sites. But
for the purpose of statutory land use control, the database
had to be more specific than 1km grid. She hoped that the
public information would help prevent time-consuming review
and appeal procedures in future planning applications. As
it was pointed out by others that dragonflies would mutate
at a rapid rate, she wondered how the Administration could
effectively identify and protect the newly mutated species
in the territory. In response, Mr. Lay said that dragonflies
would not mutate easily. The major difficulties with the proposed
surveys were the dynamic nature of the ecosystem. Due to the
natural process of succession and the changing human activities
(e.g. agricultural practices), the biodiversity also changed
as a result of the changing habitats. In addition, many of
the species covered in the surveys were inconspicuous and/or
secretive in behaviour. It was, therefore, not always easy
to ascertain the rarity and status of some species. He was,
however, optimistic that the result of the present proposed
surveys would produce useful information.
73. In response to a Member's enquiry, Mr.
Lay said that the rough estimated budget of the database
would be about $2M for 2002-03 and $4M each year from 2003-04
to 2005-06 for establishing the database and $3M from 2005-06
onwards for maintaining the system.
74. Two Members cautioned that the
release of detailed information on sites of ecologically importance
to the public might defeat the purpose of conserving those
sites. The Administration should be careful when providing
such information to the public.
75. A Member asked who would be responsible
for determining the ecological value of species, whether the
time taken to set up the database could be shortened and whether
the data of previous EIA studies would be included in the
database. She was disappointed that compared to the amount
spent on other environmental protection programmes, only a
few million dollars were earmarked for the proposed exercise.
76. In response to that Member's questions,
Mr. Lay said that upon completion of the surveys, AFCD
would consult relevant groups and experts regarding the relative
ecological value of the species identified. Regarding the
timeframe, since the surveys involved detailed field investigations
which could not be fast-tracked, it was difficult to advance
the completion date of the database. Information contained
in EIA reports put under the EIA register was in the public
domain and therefore could be included in the database without
question.
77. In response to that Member's comments
on the meager resources available for the project, Mrs.
Lily Yam said that given the financial constraints of
the Government, it had not been easy to secure funding for
new initiatives. The plan to consult the public on the review
of the nature conservation policy within the year still stood.
The new Secretary for the Environment, Health and Welfare
would draw up his own work agenda for the coming five years.
78. The Chairman thanked Mr. Lay and
Dr. So for the presentation and concluded that the Council
fully supported the proposed surveys and database.
Agenda Item 6 : Any Other Business
Farewell lunch for Mrs. Lily Yam
79. The Chairman reminded Members that
a lunch would be held on 17 June 2002 to bid farewell to Mrs.
Lily Yam who would retire from the civil service on 1 July
2002.
Tentative items for discussion at the next
meeting
80. The Chairman informed Members that
two items were tentatively scheduled for the next meeting,
namely the 2001 Implementation Report of the Waste Reduction
Framework Plan and the briefing by the Green Council on the
operation of the Hong Kong Green Label Scheme.
Agenda Item 7 : Date of Next Meeting
81. The next meeting was scheduled for Tuesday,
21 May 2002.
|