July, 2011:

http://www.foe.org.hk/welcome/geten.asp?id_path=1,%207,%2028,%20152,%204590,%204754

Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK) recently announced the Hong Kong International Airport Master Plan 2030 (Master Plan 2030), where two options were proposed. Option 1 is to maintain the existing two-runway system, and Option 2 is to expand into a three-runway system. Green Groups including the Conservancy Association, Green Peace, Green Sense, Friends of the Earth (HK), Clean Air Network, Hong Kong Dolphin Conservation Society (HKDCS) and Greeners Action have jointly declared:

We are disappointed with AAHK’s lack of neutrality during its public consultation. A large amount of resources were used to promote the need for the third runway. We find it unacceptable that the AAHK deliberately trivializes the impact of the third runway on Chinese White Dolphins by altering the distribution map of Chinese White Dolphins published by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department without authorization.

A large part of the Hong Kong ocean would be permanently gone if the proposal were carried out, since the three-runway system would require about 650 hectares of land reclamation. Dolphin expert, Dr. Samuel Hung, pointed out that the proposed third runway is located at the intersection of three core areas visited by dolphins which is very important to them. The proposed adoption of environmentally-friendly reclamation methods is not going to help much when such great damage is done to the marine ecology.

The aviation industry is a polluting industry which emits large amounts of carbon dioxide and air pollutants as part of its operation. The industry accounts for around 4% of Hong Kong’s total carbon emissions. For carbon dioxide that is emitted at high altitudes, the resultant greenhouse effect caused is much greater than that emitted at ground level. However, AAHK spared no paragraphs on explaining the projected increase in carbon emissions in the consultation documents.

Polluting facilities like power plants already exist in North Lantau and Tuen Mun. More projects are being planned in the area as well, such as the HK-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge, waste incinerators, Tung Chung Extension Reclamation, Hong Kong-Shenzhen Airport Railway etc. We believe that these infrastructure projects are over-concentrated, and the total reclamation will take up an extremely large footprint and will seriously worsen air pollution.

We stress that building the third runway requires much more discussion and research as it not only involves environmental issues but also issues on airspace constraints, noise pollution, construction cost, demand forecast, cooperation with Pearl River Delta airports etc. To avoid wasting 136.3 billion of taxpayers’ money, the Government and AAHK should not make a hasty decision which may create a “Big white elephant”.

Green Groups call on the AAHK to:
(1) Stop trivializing the environmental impact of the third runway. Face and admit the enormous impact the third runway has on the environment
(2) Extend the public consultation period and present more relevant data on impacts on the environment, public health and ecology
(3) Maintain neutrality when promoting and consulting the public on the proposal. Avoid over-emphasizing the economic impact/benefits of the third runway
(4) Handle environmental issues properly even before the mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment(EIA) process

To enhance public understanding on the environmental impact of the third runway, the following website http://greenerairport.blogspot.com has been set up to explain the stance and arguments of green groups.

Hong Kong Standard — 22 July 2011

About seven out of 10 those polled by the Civic Party want an independent consultant to evaluate the economic impact of the proposed third airport runway.

About seven out of 10 those polled by the Civic Party want an independent consultant to evaluate the economic impact of the proposed third airport runway.

The party conducted a telephone survey involving 1,365 respondents from June 20 to June 27.

It found that 67 percent agree the Legislative Council should employ an independent consultant to review the accuracy of financial data provided by the Airport Authority.

In its consultation document, the authority estimates that, with the additional runway, economic benefits will reach HK$912 billion in 2009 dollars over a 50-year period from 2012 to 2061, compared with HK$432 billion if the current two-runway system is simply modified.

It claims the model used to estimate the economic benefits of a third runway is widely adopted in the United States.

Party vice chairman Albert Lai Kwong- tak said the criteria used fails to take environmental costs into account and he presented the poll results yesterday to back up party claims.

The poll also found 68 percent agree the government should conduct an environmental assessment of the runway and recommend compensatory measures.

Lai said the strategic environmental assessment should also include the impact of other projects such as the Hong Kong-Zhuhai- Macau Bridge and reclamation of surrounding neighborhoods, in particular Tung Chung, Ma Wan and Tuen Mun.

Party member and legislator Tanya Chan Suk-chong said conflicting roles should be avoided as the authority “can’t be the player and referee at the same time.”

Chan said: “The Transport and Housing Bureau should take over the public consultation to show credibility.” Other departments should also be involved, including the Environment Bureau.

Lai reiterated that the party is not opposed to a third runway but information is insufficient to assist a public consultation.

South China Morning Post — 22 July 2011

WWF is not opposed to the sustainable development of Hong Kong. Any questioning of the assumptions and contentions in the Airport Authority’s expensive propaganda campaign supporting the third runway should not be construed as being anti-development.

The information offered by the authority is seriously lacking in specifics about the environmental impacts and the resultant costs. Major infrastructure projects must include an element of the social costs.

The people of Hong Kong are being asked to support an investment of HK$136 billion for a project with too few specifics provided. Our business community would not give a go-ahead on an investment of a lesser magnitude with such limited information.

WWF has expressed our concern about the impact of this huge loss of habitat on the very survival of the Chinese white dolphin. In discussions with WWF, the authority has recognised it is encroaching on the species’ habitat but is at a loss about what to do. WWF has expressed considerable concern about the impact of the ongoing loss of fishery grounds for our fishing community. Nothing is forthcoming on this social and economic cost to our community.

In a meeting with the authority we were astounded that it was unable to provide information on the increase in greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the increased traffic using the runaway. We were informed no such calculation has been undertaken because of the complexity of types of aircraft and predicted fuel efficiencies.

This assertion raises the question: How is the authority able to quantify the economic benefits to Hong Kong using traffic data to support its arguments, yet is incapable of calculating the greenhouse gas emissions?

This is a runway long on promises but woefully short on specifics.

WWF calls for the consultation process to be halted until after this crucial information is provided to the public. Then and only then can a reasoned decision be made.

Eric Bohm, CEO, WWF-Hong Kong

South China Morning Post — 21 July 2011

As the Airport Authority’s campaign for a third runway at Hong Kong International Airport moves into high gear, it feels increasingly like the cart is being put before the horse. Promotional videos and materials are being churned out and the government’s three-month consultation is under way, with its focus on increasing capacity. Of course, the tens of billions of dollars involved dictate that every possible aspect has to be publicly examined and that there is a thorough debate. However, it ignores the fundamental point that increased capacity, allowing for vastly more aircraft to fly in and out, will not be fully utilised unless there is hard-and-fast agreement on flight paths with Shenzhen and Macau.

It is all a matter of airspace. As the authority pointed out in its technical report, fully realising the potential capacity gain of another runway requires redesigning flight paths over the Pearl River Delta region. Hong Kong would need “a northern circuit, long final approach tracks and independent arrival procedures”. As yet, despite three years of bargaining, no deal to allow these has been signed.

Civil Aviation Department officials are nonetheless positive. They say that consensus was recently reached, although they admit that nothing formal has yet been agreed. With all airports in the region competing for rapidly expanding business and jealous of what they have and eager for more, a signed-and-sealed deal is essential. Without it there can be no certainties or guarantees.

The authority has yet to reveal its budget for the campaign, and how much the consultation will cost taxpayers is equally uncertain. Both were rolled out with next to no public discussion. That they were launched without there even being certainty about whether there is a possibility that substantially more planes will be able to fly into Hong Kong seems, in the circumstances, presumptive. If public funds are not to be wasted, we should be handling such matters in the correct order – which, common sense would say, is to get airspace approvals first.