bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

helpersCheckIsPostiesArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

moreOnThisArticles

urlAlias

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

paywallTypes

corrections

sponsorType

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

socialHeadline

headline

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

publishedDate

additionalInfoBoxes

images

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

createdDate

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

Christine Loh

TOMORROW I will raise a debate in the Legislative Council asserting that the Government's reclamation plans are excessive.

   Its policy should be to protect the harbour as a unique and irreplaceable public asset and to ensure that further reclamation will be limited, openly planned and accountably carried out.

  Over the past 50 years, the Government has reclaimed more than 3,600 hectares of the harbour. That is about four times the size of Kowloon. Currently, existing and committed projects will fill up another 661 hectares, and there are proposals to reclaim 1,300 hectares more.

  Thus, upon completion, another area equal to more than twice the size of Kowloon will disappear forever.

  The sheer size of the reclamation deserves much greater public debate and scrutiny. Coupled with the Government's plans to build container terminals 10 and 11 (and perhaps more) on Lantau Island, Hong Kong's natural environment and living conditions will be irreversibly altered.

  The net effect will be a vast increase in the number of heavy goods vehicles on roads and the associated congestion and pollution.

   Government plans also include concentrating another one million people in the core urban area in the future.

  The loss will include the aesthetic natural relationships of land and sea which form part of Hong Kong people's identity, further damage to the living marine environment and a deterioration in air and noise qualities resulting in possibly intolerable public health risks.

  In exchange, the Government argues that Hong Kong will remain economically competitive as a 'hub centre' for shipping and commerce.

  However, it is unclear exactly what these gains are going to be except perhaps a very modest increase in gross domestic product (GDP).

  This argument is not without challenge by port operators and business analysts. They say that the most important factor determining the success of a port is location to the cargo source.

  With ports expanding and developing in China, intra-Asian and some trans-shipment traffic will bypass Hong Kong in the future. A main economic risk is an over-provision of terminal facilities.

  The Government also argues that more land is needed to accommodate a growing population and to create a better-organised city.

   This sounds good enough but so far, there has been insufficient scrutiny of the Government's population estimates of an increase of almost two million people to 8.1 million by 2011.

  What is the basis for this projection?   Even if this number is reasonable, is it good city planning to concentrate a million people on the newly-reclaimed area? Officials argue that Hong Kong people do not wish to move out of the urban areas.

   That may be the case for some but if there was an efficient and affordable public transport system for the New Territories, then there would be a lot less hesitation to move.

  Rail lines should be built to such areas as Tseung Kwan O and Ma On Shan as soon as possible. The underground should be extended to Western and Aberdeen. The Western Corridor railway serving freight as well as passengers must be expedited as far as possible.

  Another government argument in favour of reclamation - over developing land in the New Territories and accelerating urban renewal - is speed. Filling up the harbour is fast because it does not involve land resumption or negotiations with landlords and tenants.

  Bureaucrats may prefer speed and ease, but they must balance the potential gains with losses. Regrettably, they are better at calculating pluses than minuses.

  The Government has not carried out cumulative environmental and health impact assessments beforehand for the airport core projects which are well underway, port development plans and reclamation works.

  They are not going to do it now; officials say it will take too long.

  Putting these projects in place as quickly as possible may increase GDP somewhat, but the community has no idea about the effects to their quality of life in the long term.

  Civil servants seem upset that people are now asking for the port and reclamation plans to be held off until there has been a thorough public debate of the assumptions behind the plans and all the development options available. They accuse the public of not having spoken up earlier.

  Many concerned parties did not realise the extent of the various plans because of the way the Government released information. Until the Town Planning Board (TPB) asked in 1994 for all past, current and future reclamation plans to be presented in one single chart, it was almost impossible for the public to get to grips with the extent of the works.

  The TPB's disquiet became a torrent of loud discontent a year later. This may be the last chance Hong Kong people have to question the wisdom of the Government's plans before the harbour and environment are devastated.

  The main problem with the planning process is that it is the Government itself which decides what constitutes an acceptable trade-off between its own development agenda and the environmental, health and aesthetic damage to the community.

  The Government decides upon the scope of the reclamation and solicits public input only after its consultants have concluded their studies.

   Since the Government provides the terms of reference for the studies, often only its particular concerns are reflected and considered.

  To date, the Government's so-called public consultation exercises are opportunities for officials to explain and defend their choices. There is no real exchange with the public about a variety of development options.

  The South China Morning Post reported on March 1 that the principal government town planner, Dr Ted Pryor, admitted that public views had often been ignored in the past, and that he was going to review plans to develop the harbour and also the New Territories for fresh public consultation.

  It is hard to take Dr Pryor seriously when on March 6, the Post reported that the director of the Planning Department, Dr Peter Pun Kwok-shing, said the government-proposed reclamation programme was on schedule.

  What can be done to change this callous and obdurate decision-making process?   One suggestion is the setting-up of a Planning Commission where all stake-holders are represented. This is the best solution in the long run, but it is going to take a considerable time to establish.

  What can be done now?   The question is especially pressing for Victoria Harbour - the water separating Hong Kong from Kowloon. This most familiar and heavily-travelled part of the harbour is under immediate threat of being reclaimed past the point of no return.

  I have drafted a Protection of the Harbour Bill which provides for the TPB to be given legal power to review the Government's reclamation plans in Victoria Harbour, and then for the legislature to endorse them.

  The Government has already said it will take all reclamation plans to the TPB in future. It should legally obligate itself to do so. My bill is a start in that direction.

  Critics question whether the legislature ought to be involved. As the process stands, involving the legislature is the best way to give reclamation maximum transparency and to ensure a thorough public debate.

  There may be other solutions. I hope this week's debate will flush them out.



Cast adrift in a sea of development