Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

April, 2015:

Conflict-of-interest row rocks Hong Kong building assessment body

BEAM Society (BSL), which runs the BEAM Plus assessment scheme, has monopoly to carry out assessments that are required to obtain lucrative concessions Leaked documents have revealed conflict-of-interest allegations involving directors of a not-for-profit organisation with a monopoly on green building assessments that allow developers to claim government incentives worth billions of dollars.

The allegations centre on the BEAM Society (BSL), which runs the BEAM Plus assessment scheme. Since 2011, registering for the BEAM Plus scheme has been a prerequisite for developers wishing to increase the gross floor area of projects by 10 per cent without paying the government any extra premium under a Buildings Department plan to encourage green development.

But many of BSL’s 25 directors are drawn from companies in the construction and property sector, and BSL staff members have alleged that directors approved plans or project submissions in which they had a vested interest.

The case sparked alarm given the public interest involved. One lawmaker was “aghast” that a private organisation with no government oversight was handed such a monopoly.

In a letter dated May 16, 2013, a copy of which was seen by the South China Morning Post, BSL’s secretariat complains of a lack of fairness, transparency and accountability in the operation of the BEAM Plus assessment scheme, and says some directors abused their power.

“Their roles have allowed them to gain enormous power with BSL, ie, sometimes they report to themselves for actions they take and could approve the plans that they themselves propose,” reads the letter to BSL’s board. It is signed by the secretariat’s administrative team, marketing and training team, and technical team.

A source familiar with the situation told the Post some directors were indeed “more equal” than others.

BSL chairman Professor John Ng Cheuk-yee said the board had investigated the complaint but “due to confidentiality of the board’s decision and the involvement of some persons, it would not be appropriate to divulge further information”.

But he confirmed that not all of the follow-up actions recommended by the investigation team, which completed its work in October 2013, had been implemented. Three of the complainants no longer worked for BSL, he added.

Founded in 1996 by construction and real estate professionals, BSL was set up to create the BEAM – Building Environmental Assessment Method – tool.

The organisation underwent a restructure in 2009 when it joined three other professional organisations to set up the Green Building Council. The council is now responsible for certifying that developments are registered and have undergone BEAM assessment by BSL, and sets fees for registration and assessment.

Ng said BSL began the process last year of converting itself into a public body under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. It had been advised to do so by the Independent Commission Against Corruption in September 2012. Doing so would require a government bill to pass through the Legislative Council.

But critics say the government should have ensured it had oversight of BSL or the council before the Buildings Department gave the organisations a monopoly on assessments.

“I am totally aghast at the lack of government regulations to oversee both BSL and the council when they have been given this special privilege to manage a scheme that involves exceedingly vast public interest,” Democratic Party lawmaker Wu Chi-wai said. “This is a blatant case of government-business collusion and will undermine public trust in the government’s drive for green buildings.”

The Buildings Department took a month to respond to requests for comment, then said only that it was not “involved in the management and operation of the [Green Buildings Council], BSL or the BEAM Plus assessment that they administer”.

The BEAM Plus tests assess a project in several areas including energy use, site ventilation, indoor air quality, water consumption and waste management. Projects are given a grade on a five-point scale, but even those given the lowest grade, unclassified, are eligible for the gross floor area incentives – developers need only publish the results of the assessment in their brochures.

Ng insisted some of the allegations were unfounded, including claims of inconsistency in assessments and of undue influence by some directors on the secretariat staff.

The green requirement was introduced as part of a drive to halt widespread misuse of a scheme that allowed developers to increase gross floor area by adding extra amenities to their developments. Previously, the amount of extra gross floor area developers could claim for amenities and green features had not been capped.

From April 2011 to December 31 last year, a total of 260 new projects had been granted gross floor area concessions, Buildings Department figures show.

The Green Building Council has also been accused of pushing up the price of BEAM Plus certification – which critics again said reflected lax oversight.

Source URL: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/1777202/green-building-scheme-facescriticism

Hong Kong’s elderly face special air pollution risk, unique study finds

Research over 13 years shows a link between fine particles and increased death rates

A groundbreaking tracker study offers evidence for the first time that the fine suspended particles known as PM2.5 lead to a higher death rate among elderly people in the city.

Conducted by a team from the University of Hong Kong’s School of Public Health, the study successfully tracked more than 60,200 elderly Hongkongers for 10 to 13 years, from 1998 to 2011, and analysed the mortality rate in correlation to the levels of PM2.5 where they lived. There are participants from all 18 districts.

Its results were published yesterday in journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

“There have been studies on the lethalness of PM2.5 and other pollutants but no data at all in Asia … this study provides new evidence on mortality from the long-term effects of being exposed to PM2.5 among the elderly,” said HKU associate professor Dr Wong Chit-ming, of the School of Public Health, who led the study. “This refutes [claims] that perhaps Asians are less susceptible to the effects of PM2.5.”

The study – which used Nasa satellites to narrow down PM2.5 levels by square kilometre – was the first of its kind in Asia not just Hong Kong, and was rare worldwide in its scope and detail, Wong said. While most overseas studies compare different cities, HKU’s examined Hong Kong in detail, and can therefore give more accurate results specific to the city.

The study is also relevant as Hong Kong grapples with a fast-ageing population.

Every 10-unit increase in PM2.5 correlated to a 22 per cent hike in deaths by cardiovascular causes, a 42 per cent increase in coronary heart disease and a 24 per cent increase in strokes.

The study took into account participants’ individual variables – health records, income, education level and lifestyle habits such as smoking – as well as the socio-economic status of the communities in which they lived, Wong said. The variables were factored in to the calculations.

There were around 16,000 deaths from natural causes during the study. The report stated that survival was highest among those who were exposed to the least amount of PM2.5, and “markedly lower” for those with high exposure.

The World Health Organisation sets 25 micrograms per square metre as the maximum 24-hour average concentration for PM2.5. Hong Kong averages 40 to 50, while mainland readings often surpass 100.

http://aqicn.org/city/hongkong/

Source URL (modified on Apr 26th 2015, 4:01am): http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/1776575/hong-kongs-elderly-face-special-air-pollution-risk

UNIVERSAL POLITICS (including Hong Kong) GRAPHICALLY EXPLAINED

Download (PDF, 1.11MB)

Pollution panorama: Hong Hong’s shrinking views and shrinking lungs

Every time I look across Victoria Harbour, I’m reminded that people are dying

While I live in a tiny little flat like so many Hongkongers, I have the good fortune to enjoy a panoramic view of Victoria Harbour from the Kowloon side. On a clear day with blue skies, it’s a spectacular sight, with gleaming skyscrapers along the waterfront from Causeway Bay to Central providing an impressive backdrop to the ships and boats sailing in and out of one of the most famous ports in the world.

The problem is clear days have become an elusive and endangered phenomenon in this city. In fact I can’t remember the last time I looked out of my window and got my money’s worth. Those gleaming skyscrapers are constantly shrouded in dull smog or haze. It’s like Blade Runner out there – seriously, the only element missing from this dystopian scene is a cyborg or two.

This goes far beyond a man complaining about his view. Scientific research has shown there’s a direct link between visibility and the health impact of air pollution. According to a University of Hong Kong study back at the beginning of 2011, every loss of 6.5 kilometres of visibility translates into an increase of more than one per cent in all natural causes of death.

As grim as the thought is, the view from my window is a constant reminder that people are dying every day of illnesses as a direct consequence of this city’s filthy air.

The other day I decided to go out for a run by the waterfront, even though I had half a mind not to because, looking out of my window, I could barely distinguish our famous skyline through the haze. I reckoned I’d be breathing in so much dirty air outside, it would be the equivalent of sitting at home and smoking a cigarette. On my way out of the building I bumped into a neighbour who remarked that it was a lovely day to go jogging. She wasn’t being sarcastic. It was sunny outside with a cool breeze – and she doesn’t have my harbour view for a frame of reference.

And therein lies the crux of the problem in Hong Kong. Hardly anyone realises how bad the air is on any given day because they don’t look up at the sky or across the harbour as they go about their daily business. If they do, then they’re either in a state of jaded acceptance or denial.

unnamed (5)

Apart from the government’s reluctance or inability to take the bold and drastic action needed to fix our pollution problems, the Hong Kong Observatory is no help with its sanitised, understated or downright misleading language when issuing weather bulletins. A “fine” day in most parts of the world conjures images of clear, blue skies, sunshine and fresh air. But in the misguided meteorological vocabulary of Hong Kong, the word is a substitute for “no rain” and nothing more. It could be the foulest of days in terms of air pollution, when children and the elderly are literally warned to stay indoors for their own safety, but the Observatory’s description of the conditions outside will be “fine”. Our weather forecasters never use the word “pollution” – they religiously stick to the more nebulous “haze”. I used to get confused in the beginning when the forecast was “fine and hazy” or “fine with low visibility”, but I now understand it just means it’s not raining, and the air is as foul as ever.

We have an official air quality index but nobody reacts to the alarming numbers it registers day after day.

Did you know that babies are being born in Hong Kong with smaller and weaker lungs because of the poison in the air we breathe? Just stop and think about it. This newspaper reported this stunning fact last year and it barely caused a flutter. I wonder how many people even remember it now.

Our local green groups make the occasional bleating sounds to remind the government that this is just not acceptable for a world city, but if officials are listening, then whatever they’re smoking seems to have made them numb.

No disrespect to our increasingly belligerent and perennially protesting population, but if I were a parent in Hong Kong I’d be more worried about my child’s shrunken, blackened lungs than the right to vote for a genuine choice of chief executive in 2017, or whether Ricky Wong should get his free-television licence.

But that’s just me and my harbour view.

Source URL (modified on Apr 24th 2015, 6:06pm): http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1774626/pollution-panorama-hong-hongs-shrinking-views-and-shrinking

Hong Kong’s proposed third runway would only reach a quarter of its potential due to airspace conflict: academics

23 Jan 2015

Samuel Chan

The proposed HK$136 billion third runway at Chek Lap Kok would only raise the airport’s efficiency by a quarter of normal expectations due to unresolved airspace conflict with neighbouring cities, concern groups and academics said yesterday.

“It equals pouring in over HK$100 billion for a quarter of a runway,” said Lam Chiu-ying, adjunct professor of geography and resource management at Chinese University.

Lam is one of four conveners of the newly established People’s Aviation Watch – a body set up to monitor the third runway project – which includes Friends of the Earth and other environmental groups, as well as academics from various disciplines.

The Airport Authority’s projection that handling capacity would increase from the current 68 flights per hour to 102 with the completion of the runway assumes Shenzhen airport would concede some of its existing airspace to Hong Kong, he said.

But the airspace conflict is the reason the current dual-runway system isn’t operating at its full capacity of 86 flights per hour, Lam said.

“The Airport Authority’s estimate is based on what they have yet to achieve,” he said.

Under the authority’s plan, aircraft using the third runway would overlap with existing flight paths of planes using Shenzhen Baoan International Airport at two points – over Jinxing Bay in Zhuhai, and over the Pearl River Delta.

“The central government may have to intervene if the Hong Kong and Shenzhen authorities fail to reach a consensus,” said Melonie Chau Yuet-cheung of Friends of the Earth.

In November last year, the government approved the environmental impact assessment for the runway despite strong opposition from conservationists.

The most expensive construction project since the handover – with a cost estimate of HK$136 billion in 2011 – still needs approval from the Executive Council on its design and funding.

The Airport Authority did not address the conflict issue directly, but said there were plans to “improve the management of airspace in the Pearl River Delta”.

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1689345/hong-kongs-proposed-third-runway-would-only-reach-quarter-its

Difficult to get airspace concession

SCMP Letters to Editor

During the presentation the Airport Authority was giving to the Town Planning Board on April 10, Wilson Fung Wing-yip, the authority’s executive director of corporate development, broached a future master plan being drafted wherein a study would be carried out into the need for a fourth runway or even a replacement airport.

Better late than never, this planning work.

But it is hoped the logistics of the planning work will not be “cart before the horse” this time, so that the need for a fourth runway or otherwise will be identified before resources are committed to add the third runway to Chek Lap Kok. For it is patently obvious that there is no possibility of adding a fourth runway at Chek Lap Kok.

The crux of the “third runway at Chek Lap Kok” airspace cloud we’re under is simply whether the mainland authorities had given the specific blessing for traffic from the third runway to turn north so that at least two of the three runways can be operated independent of each other, to enable a total capacity of 102 movements to be achieved.

The rest is empty talk. This is by no means an easy concession to grant, considering the criss-crossing between each other’s traffic, as can be seen on the diagram attached to the report “Airspace conflict could hold back third runway” (January 23).

If it was easy, it would have been granted for traffic from the present north runway to turn north, to enable the present two runways to operate independent of each other, achieving far more than the 68 movements an hour projected for later this year.

The quest for this concession is what started the umpteen tripartite meetings, starting before 1997.

Peter Lok, Chai Wan

http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1772131/letters-editor-april-21-2015

A mountain in the way of the third runway

http://multimedia.scmp.com/third-runway-mountain/

Hong Kong is set to build a third runway for Chek Lap Kok airport, but there are some stubborn physical constraints.

Sitting under airspace required for Chek Lap Kok’s proposed third runway, a firing range used by the Chinese army and the police is considered a threat to planes flying overhead. If the firing range isn’t removed by the time construction finishes, then the number of flights arriving on the new landing strip looks set to be cut. The South China Morning Post explains the latest issue to overshadow one of the world’s most congested international airports.

image001

Recommended escape route for jets on third runway

Around 10km north of Chek Lap Kok near Tuen Mun lies Castle Peak. It is a vast area of greenbelt land in the northwest New Territories, one of the few undeveloped areas of land in Hong Kong not classified as a country park nor earmarked for development.

This land contains the site of a vast firing range used by China’s People’s Liberation Army and the Hong Kong police. The site is so active that aircraft overhead cannot fly below 914 metres. Security exercises take place every Monday to Friday throughout the year in this, one of the remotest and most deserted areas of the city. A flight path for jets aborting landings on the proposed third runway sits in the crosshairs of this no-fly zone. The firing activity poses a hazard to planes. A plane approaching the runway needs a certain amount of airspace in case it needs to abort the landing at the last minute. Planes will have to climb much steeper to avoid the no-fly zone, increasing the risk of the manoeuvre.

Frequent firing by troops at the Castle Peak site threatens to reduce such airspace and limit the number of planes that can land. The distance gives commercial jets clear altitude to avoid the ammunition firing and Castle Peak itself – which stands 583 metres high. Atop of that is a broadcast tower for television satellites which stretches up to 590 metres. These three things are a problem for the third runway, say the government’s airport consultants.

Almost all of the airspace above Castle Peak sits within restricted airspace. It’s officially known as “Danger Zone 5”. Pilots are expected to navigate a narrow flight path that can fly high enough to reach at least 914 metres before entering the danger zone to avoid the terrain and the flight restrictions. In a worst-case scenario, aircraft aborting a landing would enter the firing range at a height as low as 526 metres.

image003 (1)

Panoramic view taken in 2012 from Lantau Island of the Hong Kong International Airport with Castle Peak in the background. Photo: Nora Tam/SCMP

What does the government say about Danger Zone 5?

Britain’s National Air Traffic Services (NATS), the government’s airport consultants, recommended relocating the firing range, known as Danger Zone 5, in 2008. They said the third runway would risk being little used otherwise.

A Civil Aviation Department source said the government remained open to its consultant’s warning and that the firing range could be moved before the third runway was completed – but this would mean the PLA having to cede control of a key resource.

“The missed approach procedure has been operating smoothly since its implementation and an effective communication mechanism is also in place with the firing zone and the PLA,” the source said. “We are considering all possible options and will take necessary action during detailed procedure design.”

However, the department’s official response insisted it would comply with UN aviation safety rules when planning the third runway and that Hong Kong’s existing two runways managed to operate aborted landings above the danger zone “safely and efficiently at all times”.

But the consultants say there is not enough space for planes to safely climb over Castle Peak and the firing range with the third runway in place. If a jet attempted to fly above the firing range, it would need to climb at a minimum gradient of more than 10 per cent, which NATS branded as “operationally unacceptable”.

Seven per cent is considered the maximum limit.

image004

Negative outlook

What did the former civil aviation chief, pilots, air traffic controller, and anti-third runway campaigner have to say?

“If NATS says it has to be addressed, it has to be, otherwise that procedure cannot be used, which will affect the airport capacity,” said former department chief Albert Lam Kwong-yu. “But first the PLA must agree to remove it.”

Michael Mo Kwan-tai, the spokesman for the Airport Development Concern Network, said the newly created missed approach flight path “is clearly very close to” to the danger zone. “The broadcast tower would become a threat if the firing zone isn’t relocated,” Mo said, because planes would have to avoid two major obstructions in close proximity. NATS says the tower would need to be removed.

A senior air traffic controller in Hong Kong said: “I can’t see how the firing range survives.”

Consultants carved out the escape route after assuming airspace would be merged with the Pearl River Delta and the firing range would be deactivated.

The Hong Kong Airline Pilots Association warned that older aircraft were not capable of such manoeuvres. The PLA did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Difficult to get airspace concession

http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1772131/letters-editor-april-21-2015

During the presentation the Airport Authority was giving to the Town Planning Board on April 10, Wilson Fung Wing-yip, the authority’s executive director of corporate development, broached a future master plan being drafted wherein a study would be carried out into the need for a fourth runway or even a replacement airport.

Better late than never, this planning work.

But it is hoped the logistics of the planning work will not be “cart before the horse” this time, so that the need for a fourth runway or otherwise will be identified before resources are committed to add the third runway to Chek Lap Kok. For it is patently obvious that there is no possibility of adding a fourth runway at Chek Lap Kok.

The crux of the “third runway at Chek Lap Kok” airspace cloud we’re under is simply whether the mainland authorities had given the specific blessing for traffic from the third runway to turn north so that at least two of the three runways can be operated independent of each other, to enable a total capacity of 102 movements to be achieved.

The rest is empty talk. This is by no means an easy concession to grant, considering the criss-crossing between each other’s traffic, as can be seen on the diagram attached to the report “Airspace conflict could hold back third runway” (January 23).

If it was easy, it would have been granted for traffic from the present north runway to turn north, to enable the present two runways to operate independent of each other, achieving far more than the 68 movements an hour projected for later this year.

The quest for this concession is what started the umpteen tripartite meetings, starting before 1997.

Peter Lok, Chai Wan

Shenzhen reservoir and river hit by sewage spill

Water bureau blames ink company for the pollution, according to newspaper report

Sewage has been discharged into a reservoir, river and farmland in Shenzhen turning fields in the area a reddish brown.

The water bureau in the Baoan district of the city said an ink mixing and cartridge company was responsible, the Shenzhen Jing Bao newspaper reported.

People living near the Tiegang Reservoir said that water feeding into their farmland had turned “blood red”.

“It’s very likely to be the result of an accident, like a spillage, or someone decided to dump the sewage instead of discarding it properly,” said Xiong Yang, an official at the Green River environmental NGO.

“If the sewage seeps into the soil it’s very difficult to clean up, so it’s safe to say that the vegetables are now inedible.”

The ink company Hamno Technology Co did not respond to calls asking for comment. The Baoan water bureau also did not answer calls. Xiong accused the city authorities of failing to regularly enforce environmental protection regulations.

A spokesman for the Water Supplies Department in Hong Kong said imported water from the Shenzhen Reservoir was far from the Tiegang Reservoir site.

No reports had been made to the department about the pollution at Tiegang, he said.

The department monitored water quality at a pumping station near Lo Wu around the clock and have observed no abnormalities, he added.

The Shenzhen authorities would report to them if there were any pollution issues concerning the Dong River, he said, which supplies Hong Kong.

An investigative report by the Shenzhen Evening News last year claimed that 173 out of the 310 rivers and streams running through the city were polluted.

A municipal environment commission also reported that water quality at 121 sampling stations, covering 85 per cent of the city, was “extremely poor”.

Additional reporting by Thomas Chan

Source URL (modified on Apr 19th 2015, 3:45am): http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/1770159/shenzhen-reservoir-and-river-hit-sewage-spill

Why Hong Kong’s third runway is not needed

The building of the third runway is expected to be cause for public pride for Hong Kong and an engineering marvel. I want to add my voice of opposition to it.

Hong Kong enjoys an enviable geographic location and is an international business centre attracting

multinational corporations which utilise our aviation hub. It is, therefore, important for Hong Kong to maintain its hub status which helps drive our economic growth.

I do not doubt that the airport in its current form will eventually be overwhelmed by the steady growth in both passenger and cargo traffic. But it seems that the building of the third runway is a piecemeal strategy, building a new runway whenever capacity is reached.

Hong Kong International Airport has not fully utilised the two existing runways.

Instead, the airport management should better plan the efficient use of the runways. Take Heathrow as an example: it operates its two runways at 80 aircraft movements per hour. This should be evidence enough for the government to improve management of aircraft movements.

The central issue is airspace in the Pearl River delta.

There are five airports clustered around the delta, making the airspace in the region one of the most congested in the world, limiting routes for all air traffic. This arrangement places a finite limit on flight movements into or out of Chep Lap Kok, regardless of the number of runways.

It is not a small piece of land the authorities are reclaiming, and the location of the proposed third runway is in the heart of three Chinese white dolphin hotspots.

Reclamation will also cause a lot of solid and water pollution during construction.

Suspended solids and other pollutants released during the construction process will directly affect marine animals and those of us who eat fish.

Some claim to have solutions, such as using deep cement mixing and building dolphin parks but these will only add to costs I doubt revenue will cover.

Simply put, Hong Kong does not need a third runway. What Hong Kong needs is better management and utilisation of its existing two runways.

Nazreen Banu, Wong Tai Sin

Source URL (modified on Apr 19th 2015, 12:01am): http://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/1768591/why-hong-kongs-third-runway-not-needed