Zoning of compensation areas
14. A Member enquired about the zoning
of the compensation areas managed by KCRC. Mr. Lawrence
Ngo replied that according to the approved EIA report,
those areas were within wetland conservation areas but he
had to confirm that after the meeting.
(Post meeting notes: This information is reflected
in Fig 4.2 , Volume 5 of 5 of the approved EIA report)
Starting date of station construction work
15. In reply to a Member's enquiry, Mr.
McNally said that the contract for the Lok Ma Chau Terminus
construction work had just been awarded. The contractor would
take a couple of months for mobilization. It was expected
that major construction works would start in January next
year.
Notification of the start of construction
work to neighbouring fish farmers 16. A Member
suggested that the project proponent should notify neighbouring
fish farmers about the start of construction work and maintain
liaison with them. Mr. McNally said that they would
inform the fish farmers of the start of construction work
and would monitor changes in use of the neighbouring fishponds.
However, it was not necessary at the moment to liaise with
the farmers as the enhancement work would not have a significant
effect on them. Dr. Leven supplemented that if there
were problems, they would discuss with the farmers on a day-to-day
basis.
Transparency of the project
17. A Member enquired about the progress
of setting up a web site for presenting the data of the project
for public information. Mr. McNally said that they
had created a web site for uploading the EM&A data of the
project and data obtained from the HCMP and other relevant
reports.
Conclusion
18. The Chairman thanked the project
proponent for presenting the HCMP and E&MA manual to the Subcommittee
and clarifying Members' queries regarding the reports.
Agenda Item 4: Meeting with Stakeholders
of Major Designated Projects
19. The Chairman said that at the Council
meeting held on 29 July 2002, a Member raised the point of
meeting with stakeholders who had concerns about a particular
designated project. It was agreed that the Subcommittee would
consider the matter at a later meeting. In response to the
Chairman's invitation, the Member raised several matters
for discussion, namely informal dialogue with project proponents,
meeting with stakeholder of designated projects, to invite
experts to attend Subcommittee meetings and conflict of interest.
Informal dialogue with project proponents
20. The above Member pointed out that
with the mechanism of informal dialogue, project proponent
might think that if one formal meeting would not be enough
they could always wait for an informal one. Also, some project
proponents provided information at a very late stage. Both
factors made it very difficult for Members to determine when
to make a decision, as additional information might contain
crucial points that would affect their deliberation. She therefore
hoped that the Subcommittee would draw a line on when to have
an informal dialogue with project proponent.
21. The Chairman said that informal
dialogue with project proponents arose from the verdict of
the EIA Appeal Board after hearing the appeal on the Sheung
Shui to Lok Ma Chau Spur Line. The Appeal Board considered
that early dialogue with the project proponent could facilitate
the EIA process. As for the EIA Subcommittee, there were two
guiding principles to decide whether to accept project proponent's
request for an informal dialogue : the meeting should be held
in the early planning stage and the proponent sought to exchange
views with the Subcommittee on specific issues of concern.
Normally requests would not be entertained if the project
proponent had already finalized the EIA report. Two Members
agreed that an informal dialogue with project proponent before
the formal meeting would resolve issues and save a lot of
time during the actual process.
22. In response to a Member's enquiry, the
Secretary said that informal dialogue would not be regarded
as formal meeting and Members' attendance would not be counted.
Meeting with experts
23. A Member said that the Subcommittee
was sometimes presented with technical data that were difficult
to comprehend and Members had to make decisions without fully
understanding the data presented. She considered it unfair
that while project proponents could bring a team of experts
to the meeting to convince Members of their proposals, the
Subcommittee could not invite experts to the meeting to give
Members more information on EIA reports. She referred to a
case in which her request to invite an expert to the Subcommittee
meeting was not accepted and said that the Subcommittee should
be more open-minded.
24. The Chairman clarified that he
would consider two criteria before making a decision whether
to invite an expert to the meeting, i.e. whether the person
had the expertise in the subject concerned and whether he
was neutral on the issue in question. He would accept the
request if the two basic criteria were met. In that occasion,
he did suggest making separate arrangements for Members to
meet the expert informally, not in the name of the Subcommittee.
He and some Members subsequently did meet with the expert.
25. A Member commented that Members
should trust the integrity of the person concerned and should
listen to his views so as to get a more complete picture of
the matter. Whether Members would accept his opinions was
totally up to Members. The Subcommittee should not refuse
to listen to him simply because he had taken side on an issue.
Another Member pointed out that there was existing
mechanism to invite experts to Subcommittee meetings. In the
past, the Subcommittee had invited experts to Subcommittee
meetings on two occasions because there was a lack of knowledge
on the subject discussed. Each case should be considered individually.
Also, the experts should not come to the meeting to make a
presentation; they should only make themselves available for
answering enquiries. A third Member cautioned that
the Subcommittee must be very careful in choosing experts
as different experts had different views. If an expert was
warranted, Members should have information on whether the
expert was the right person and whether he had adequate competence.
26. Members then discussed whether it was
necessary for the Subcommittee Chairman to consult Members
before he decided on a request to invite expert to the Subcommittee
meeting. A Member said that instead of consulting Members
each time he received a request, the Chairman could decide
on the basis of certain criteria. Two Members agreed
that the Chairman should be entrusted with decision on such
matter. Another Member said that the objective of inviting
experts to sit in was to provide more information so that
the Subcommittee could make a better decision. It was sometimes
difficult to classify whether a person was a stakeholder or
a professional. If the majority of the Subcommittee considered
that an expert's presence would be useful, then he should
be invited. However, if there was not sufficient time to consult
Members, the Chairman should make his own discretion.
27. A Member said the role of the Subcommittee
was advisory and the way the Subcommittee made a decision
was totally up to Members. She would welcome the opportunity
if experts were available to give Members information rather
than opinions when deliberating a particular case. Members
should have a fair idea on what paper would be discussed and
therefore could raise request for inviting experts well before
the actual meeting to allow sufficient time for the Chairman
to consult Members.
28. After further discussion, the Subcommittee
agreed that if time allowed, the Chairman should consult
Members before he made a decision whether to invite an expert
to the EIA Subcommittee meeting but the final decision after
listening to Members' views should rest with him. Also, an
expert attending the Subcommittee meeting should make himself
available for enquiries rather than making a presentation
on personal views.
29. Putting aside the forum of Subcommittee
meeting, Members agreed that separate arrangements
to be made by green groups or individual Members on meetings
with experts should be welcomed.
Meeting with stakeholders
30. A Member suggested that the Subcommittee
should have meetings with stakeholders of designated projects
and listen to their views before making a decision on EIA
reports. Another Member expressed reservation on having
meetings with stakeholders because the Subcommittee did not
have a role to consult the public and the effort required
for that kind of consultation would be tremendous. The
Chairman said that the terms of reference of the Subcommittee
was to provide input based on Members' understanding and knowledge
of the EIA reports submitted. Furthermore, there were other
channels under the EIA Ordinance for stakeholders and the
public to forward comments to the Director of Environmental
Protection (DEP). A third Member concurred with the
view that the Subcommittee was not a suitable venue to hear
the concerns and grievances of stakeholders. Another Member
believed that there might not be much value in formally hearing
the views of stakeholders, as their interests might not necessarily
be within the purview of the Subcommittee, which was primarily
environmental. A Member pointed out that stakeholders
would have objectives and vested interests and it would be
very difficult to entertain all of them, nor was it the job
of the Subcommittee to do so. Stakeholders could voice their
views to DEP within the statutory 30-day public consultation
period.
Declaration of interest
31. A Member noticed that in the past
some Members declared an interest in an issue before discussion
but kept on giving their views during the meeting. In some
other Government advisory bodies, Members who had declared
interest would need to stay away from the meeting. She hoped
that the Subcommittee would clarify the procedure.
32. Another Member pointed out that
the Subcommittee had detailed rules on declaration of interest
which were distributed to Members when they were appointed
to the Council. A Member said that Members should exercise
conscience in case of conflict of interest. He believed the
existing guidelines were adequate. Another Member considered
that the issue of declaration of interest was related to the
whole Council and should be more appropriately discussed at
full Council meeting. The Chairman clarified that according
to ACE-EIA Paper 1/2002 on the Modus Operandi of the EIA Subcommittee,
Members should declare direct or indirect interest before
deliberating on agenda items so that the Chairman could decide
whether they could take part in the discussion or voting.
On the other hand, Members could also raise objection to the
Chairman, if necessary
Conclusion
33. Having regard to the above discussions,
the Chairman concluded that-
|