This poisoned land

POLLUTION in Hongkong is unavoidable. It dictates that you avoid shellfish, plug your ears to construction noise, cover your mouth to traffic fumes and bathe only at beaches tested for water quality. By most measurements, it is not getting any better and may be getting worse, with implications for public health. The Environmental Protection Department (EPD) has been struggling to keep up, guided by a White Paper - released exactly four years ago today, World Environment Day - that set out for the first time a policy on combatting pollution. But the struggle has often not been matched with the needed funds or political will. As Legislative Councillor Christine Loh Kung-wai put it: ''They have made some effort. What we say is, are they going fast enough?'' The sense of urgency is not exaggerated. Rubbish dumps are quickly filling up, particularly with construction waste from Hongkong's booming development, and new landfills are unlikely to last as long as hoped given the current garbage loads. Where then will the waste go? The polluted harbour has deteriorated - to the point that no marine life can survive in some parts - as the Government dithered first on whether to go ahead with a $23.8 billion clean-up plan, and now on when to introduce sewage charges to help fund the scheme. NOISE pollution has improved somewhat, thanks to tougher controls on pile-drivers and some other construction noise. But, most worrying, there have been few inroads in tackling air pollution. The EPD's most optimistic predictions are that air quality, which is already unacceptable in many urban areas, will worsen at least 30 to 40 per cent by the end of the decade despite its best efforts. Increased traffic fumes will fuel the decline, which few doubt will have health implications. Local studies already have linked air pollutants to respiratory problems in children. The situation is severe enough that environmentalists, who recently joined forces to form the Green Groups United Front, put air quality at the top of their pollution concerns. ''We can choose not to drink the water, but we can't choose the quality of the air we breathe,'' said co-founder Mrs Mei Ng Fong Siu-mei of Friends of the Earth. A new government policy paper on the environment, due out at the end of the summer, undoubtedly will try to address some of the concerns, but its broad agenda could spread the focus and resources thin. In recognition of the United Nations' Earth Summit last year, and local pressure, the Secretary for Planning, Environment and Lands, Mr Tony Eason, has agreed to look beyond cleaning up the damage already done to preventing the damage in the first place. Sustainable development, energy conservation and nature conservation are expected to be addressed, but the hard slog to clean up pollution does not bode well for a quick fix in these areas. Industry opposition, internal Government politics and fears of upsetting vested interest groups have meant delays or watering down of some programmes. Academic and Conservancy Association member Mr Hung Wing-tat has kept a critical eye on government policy for several years and admits the administration would never be able to do enough to satisfy environmentalists. But, he argues, it is not helping its case. ''I know they are working within a lot of constraints, but it's also the department's priorities. For instance, in the past decade they don't really see air pollution as a real problem. They believe it's just transient, like noise,'' he said. The EPD has certainly invested a lot more in controlling waste and water pollution, this year allocating $727.7 million to waste and $92.9 million to water, excluding billions spent on sewers, landfills and other capital works projects. Air got $66.6 million and noise $27.6 million, and little capital works money. Legislator Ms Loh says there is not only a problem with priorities, but with how problems are being tackled. For instance, more than $7 billion will be spent on new landfills and $1.3 billion on a much-needed chemical waste treatment plant which officially opened on Wednesday, but no investment is going into recycling projects or encouraging people to produce less waste. ''Waste is a big problem because no one is truly looking at minimisation. We're still looking at bigger landfills and the encroachment on country parks,'' Ms Loh said, referring to an EPD plan to use part of Clearwater Bay Country Park as a rubbish tip. The only ''waste reduction'' effort has been to propose charges for disposal, on the assumption that industry would find ways to cut down on its rubbish if it had to pay to get rid of it. But none of the charging proposals has yet stood up against opposition. An effort to save space in landfills by charging a disposal fee for building rubble was stymied by the construction trade and its powerful backers, although the Government will try again next year. Chemical waste charges, intended to be in place in time for the opening of the new treatment plant, have been held up by opposition from industry. Sewage charges, due to be unveiled this summer after 18 months of delays, are likely to meet the same icy response, not just from industry but from the United Democrats who fear their constituents will be unfairly hit. Even if the sewage charges succeed, the Governor, Mr Chris Patten, has committed his administration to building only the $13 billion collection and treatment part of the massive system, not the $10 billion disposal project needed to remove the pollution from Victoria Harbour. But at least, admit the critics, efforts are being made on waste, water and noise. Air pollution, on the other hand, seems to be falling off the anti-pollution agenda. The green groups are adamant that the projected increase in air pollution is unacceptable and drastic changes, even limiting the number of vehicles on the road, are needed. The EPD is not deaf to their concerns, but Director Dr Stuart Reed bristles at the suggestion that their priorities aren't straight. AIR pollution is given priority in his department, he says. Fumes from stationary sources, such as power plants and factories, have been reduced with the costs picked up by industry, not the Government. Efforts are being made on vehicle emissions which account for more than half of all air pollution and all of the projected growth in smog. It's just that the programmes aren't the big-ticket items which waste and water require and which tend to get more headlines. ''We're not satisfied with what's in place now [on air pollution], I'm not making any bones about it,'' Dr Reed admits. ''Most urban areas around the world have this problem and it is not yet being addressed with the thoroughness it should be.'' Like other cities, Hongkong faces major growth in its vehicle traffic, which could double by the year 2000, thanks largely to increasing movements across the border. But while the EPD has given a lot of thought to the problem, there has not been much action. The main project to date has been to test about 4,000 vehicles spotted each month emitting black smoke - without any appreciable impact on air pollution. The centrepiece of their efforts was supposed to be a plan to replace small diesel vehicles with petrol ones, whose fumes are easier to control, but this was halted by top administration officials in 1991 out of inflationary fears. The petrol plan is finally being dusted off, together with long-standing proposals to introduce required vehicle maintenance checks and cleaner types of diesel fuel and engines, but it will be several years before any impact is felt. On the plus side, environment and transport officials recently began holding regular policy-level talks for the first time on traffic and pollution, but no one admits solutions will be easy. As Mr Fred Tromp, assistant director of air pollution at the EPD, said: ''We have to do a lot more work in government on the true meaning of sustainability in Hongkong and where that will take us in the next 30 to 40 years. ''That means looking at whether the ultimate solution will be electric vehicles - although that won't be a reality for 10 to 15 years - or whether we need much more aggressive control on the number of vehicles on the road.'' That suggestion is likely to stir up a new round of opposition, within and outside the Government, from special interest groups and others opposed to any limits on the territory's phenomenal economic growth. However, it is just this type of debate that the Government will step into if it takes ''sustainable development'' - which aims to prevent pollution and wastage in the first place - seriously in its new policy paper. The hold-ups on pollution clean-up programmes and the difficulties of pushing through even those that eventually succeeded, must serve as a warning and a lesson as officials ponder Hongkong's environmental future.