I REFER to the recently released document Second Review of the 1989 White Paper: A Green Challenge for the Community, by the Government.
The Conservancy Association is heartened to see that many of the long-held positions of the association have been taken on board, such as proposals for a comprehensive conservation strategy, a comprehensive energy conservation policy, a comprehensive community awareness, a more detailed treatment of recycling, and a commitment towards sustainable development and the treaties and conventions adopted at the Earth Summit last year.
This demonstrates that the continual dialogue between the association and the Government has indeed been productive.
The association takes exception, however, to the approach which the Government is taking in combining a policy review with a ''comprehensive treatment of Hong Kong's environmental issues'' which is ''intended to be an educational and information tool'' (para 2.8 of the review). While both of these - namely, a policy review and a comprehensive statement of Hong Kong's environment - are noble objectives and are much needed, combining them together in a single document could undermine the effectiveness of both.
The Conservancy Association should emphasise that it is our view that there should be both a policy paper and an educational statement, but perhaps they should be separate instead of brought together in one document.
The policy paper, in our view, should go beyond a review of the 1989 White Paper. Since there has already been a first review, why is there a need for a second review if no policy initiatives are intended? It would be very sad if no policy decisions and initiatives were intended.