Hong Kong's environment faces many threats, but they should not be coming from the minister for the environment and the director of environmental protection. Why are they ignoring the law? Last year, the government claimed that a proposed reclamation of the harbour for road building in Wan Chai was 'temporary', and thus not subject to the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance. The government lost a judicial review challenging this position, and must start again to make plans that meet legal requirements. There is a clear lesson here not to flout the law or try to get round it on the assumption that reclaimed areas can be 'dug up later' and so argue that the work is 'temporary' in nature.
Now, the government plans to take five hectares from Clear Water Bay Country Park to maximise the lifespan and cost-effectiveness of the South East New Territories (Sent) Landfill. Even worse, especially in light of the above judgment, the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) is refusing to follow an established, legally sound approval process, which provides for both statutory public consultation and compensation for the land taken, because the landfill is - guess what? - only 'temporary'.
This troubles green groups, who recognise the need for the landfill but insist that due process - the Country Parks Ordinance - must be followed. Another judicial review is most probably in the pipeline if the government pushes ahead.
The other bone of contention is the beautiful Sha Lo Tung valley. Under the government's nature conservation policy, issued in 2004, the EPD has approved a public-private partnership proposal for a columbarium and retreat centre (plus upgraded road access for large numbers of visitors) there.
The partnership was intended to secure Hong Kong's biodiversity hot spots by offering the opportunity to develop less-sensitive portions of the site in return for preserving the remainder. At first glance, this proposal looks attractive - the development is outside the boundary of the site - but, crucially, it is inside the water catchment area of the Sha Lo Tung stream, which supports the biodiversity that the new policy was written to protect. This is a problem, because it is impossible to prevent storm water run-off during the construction work - and then from the completed road and car park - polluting the stream. The standard tool for controlling such issues is the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance. Since 1998, it has provided a clear framework for assessing and managing the environmental risks of projects; it also has a strong mechanism for enforcement, and enshrines the right of public consultation.
The director of environmental protection may designate projects as environmentally sensitive, and order an environmental impact assessment to be conducted. For unexplained reasons, the director has not designated the Sha Lo Tung project as sensitive. Instead, the development was approved without public consultation, and the director said that an undisclosed contract will serve as the public-private partnership mechanism for enforcement. Unsurprisingly, green groups are angry that the director circumvented the established legislation. They see this as the rule of government replacing the rule of law.