February 27th, 2008:

Chris Yeung – Updated on Feb 27, 2008 – SCMP

It sounds undiplomatic, but speaking at a media session on a report about better air quality, the head of a government-appointed panel on sustainable development declined a request from a radio journalist for a formal interview.

“I don’t want to talk any more,” said Edgar Cheng Wai-kin. “It’s been almost two years since we launched a public engagement exercise on better air quality. People want to see action.”

Dr Cheng, who chairs the Council for Sustainable Development, has good reason to feel concerned about whether the government and community can walk the walk after the prolonged debate on how to clean our foul air.

Kicking off a session with senior journalists on Friday, which followed a separate session with environment-beat reporters on Thursday, he made it clear that the Council’s Report on Better Air Quality Process deserved better media coverage.

The report, submitted to the government about 10 days ago, was publicised in a brief despatch by the Information Services Department. Officials gave no immediate response. Media coverage was scant.

The government’s cool treatment of the report reflects a sense of caution among officials. They are wary of raising expectations about an early implementation of the proposals contained in the document.

This is simply because ideas such as an electronic road-pricing system, a new alert system on high air pollution days and subsidising the upgrading of buses to the latest Euro vehicle standards are bound to trigger yet more heated debate.

It is not surprising that officials prefer more time to study the report before making a commitment on specific measures. But, if a feeling of unease has gripped council members and some sectors of the community, it is because of the depth of uncertainty about the practical meaning of the so-called public-engagement process in handling difficult issues such as air pollution.

Noting shortcomings in the government’s traditional public-consultation method, the council has adopted a new style of bottom-up engagement in policy discussions. This process, in the context of the report on better air quality, meant there was a full programme of discussion sessions, public exhibitions, stakeholder meetings and briefings for students. An unprecedented 80,000 written responses were received.

Of these, an overwhelming majority either expressed support for, or no opposition to, the electronic road-pricing proposal. Most respondents also indicated that they were willing to pay higher transport fares for cleaner air.

The formation of a strong body of public opinion on ways to beat air pollution could become a double-edged sword for the government. Public backing for certain proposals could become ammunition for the government to fight tough political battles when turning ideas into policies. Clear, strong public support could, nevertheless, limit the room for the government to play a balancing act in policy formulation.

Now that there is a clear public mandate on certain anti-pollution measures, the government will face growing pressure for an explanation on which ones are plausible, how and when they can be achieved, and why others are non-starters.

If the government fails to meet these expectations, it will deepen public scepticism that the high-level sustainable development body – an initiative of former chief executive Tung Chee-hwa – is just another talk shop with a fancy name.

Reflecting on the experience of the five-year-old council, Dr Cheng said Hong Kong needs a combination of bureaucrats and “out-of-the-box thinkers” to tackle problems like air pollution.

The thinkers have done their job in setting out what can be done. Now it is the bureaucrats’ turn to work out the policy options for people to choose.

Chris Yeung – Updated on Feb 27, 2008 – SCMP

It sounds undiplomatic, but speaking at a media session on a report about better air quality, the head of a government-appointed panel on sustainable development declined a request from a radio journalist for a formal interview.

“I don’t want to talk any more,” said Edgar Cheng Wai-kin. “It’s been almost two years since we launched a public engagement exercise on better air quality. People want to see action.”

Dr Cheng, who chairs the Council for Sustainable Development, has good reason to feel concerned about whether the government and community can walk the walk after the prolonged debate on how to clean our foul air.

Kicking off a session with senior journalists on Friday, which followed a separate session with environment-beat reporters on Thursday, he made it clear that the Council’s Report on Better Air Quality Process deserved better media coverage.

The report, submitted to the government about 10 days ago, was publicised in a brief despatch by the Information Services Department. Officials gave no immediate response. Media coverage was scant.

The government’s cool treatment of the report reflects a sense of caution among officials. They are wary of raising expectations about an early implementation of the proposals contained in the document.

This is simply because ideas such as an electronic road-pricing system, a new alert system on high air pollution days and subsidising the upgrading of buses to the latest Euro vehicle standards are bound to trigger yet more heated debate.

It is not surprising that officials prefer more time to study the report before making a commitment on specific measures. But, if a feeling of unease has gripped council members and some sectors of the community, it is because of the depth of uncertainty about the practical meaning of the so-called public-engagement process in handling difficult issues such as air pollution.

Noting shortcomings in the government’s traditional public-consultation method, the council has adopted a new style of bottom-up engagement in policy discussions. This process, in the context of the report on better air quality, meant there was a full programme of discussion sessions, public exhibitions, stakeholder meetings and briefings for students. An unprecedented 80,000 written responses were received.

Of these, an overwhelming majority either expressed support for, or no opposition to, the electronic road-pricing proposal. Most respondents also indicated that they were willing to pay higher transport fares for cleaner air.

The formation of a strong body of public opinion on ways to beat air pollution could become a double-edged sword for the government. Public backing for certain proposals could become ammunition for the government to fight tough political battles when turning ideas into policies. Clear, strong public support could, nevertheless, limit the room for the government to play a balancing act in policy formulation.

Now that there is a clear public mandate on certain anti-pollution measures, the government will face growing pressure for an explanation on which ones are plausible, how and when they can be achieved, and why others are non-starters.

If the government fails to meet these expectations, it will deepen public scepticism that the high-level sustainable development body – an initiative of former chief executive Tung Chee-hwa – is just another talk shop with a fancy name.

Reflecting on the experience of the five-year-old council, Dr Cheng said Hong Kong needs a combination of bureaucrats and “out-of-the-box thinkers” to tackle problems like air pollution.

The thinkers have done their job in setting out what can be done. Now it is the bureaucrats’ turn to work out the policy options for people to choose.

Chris Yeung is the Post’s editor-at-large. chris.yeung@scmp.com

Denise Tsang – Updated on Feb 27, 2008 – SCMP

Beijing aims to further curb polluting manufacturing activities by cutting tax rebates and banning processing trade of 141 product types in six industries.

The State Environmental Protection Administration (Sepa) proposed yesterday to the Ministry of Commerce and China Customs to scrap tax rebates on agricultural chemicals, paint coatings, batteries and organoarsenic compounds – used to produce agricultural fertilizers – as part of the country’s environmental policy.

The policy will apply only to manufacturing using imported materials, which for years has enjoyed tax incentives.

The majority of manufacturers engaged in the affected industries are Hong Kong companies.

Described by Sepa vice-minister Pan Yue as this year’s first batch of products deemed hazardous to health and the environment, the list heralds more restrictions in the pipeline.

Market observers said the proposal would add to the financial burdens of tens of thousands of Hong Kong factory owners operating along the Pearl River Delta, who were already dealing with higher production costs, increasing wages, power shortages, a stronger yuan and other policies aimed at discouraging the production of low-value goods.

The rules would require greater environmental commitments from battery makers such as Hong Kong-listed Gold Peak Industries (Holdings) and Tianneng Power, which produce batteries in Guangdong and Zhejiang respectively, market observers said.

Neither company was available for comment yesterday.

At stake are eight types of batteries including those containing chrome, which is classified as a non-biodegradable material.

Also affected are 24 agrochemicals, 25 organoarsenic compounds and related products, 43 dyeing materials and 21 coatings that contain toxic lead oxide.

Without naming any companies, Mr Pan condemned many for making money at the expense of the environment.

He said about 500,000 tonnes of chrome waste was produced annually on the mainland, and four million tonnes had yet to be dealt with.

Green Manufacturing Alliance chairman Sunny Chai Ngai-chiu said the Sepa proposal would inevitably raise Hong Kong manufacturers’ costs and responsibilities for reducing pollution.

“It adds to the burdens of factory owners,” he said. “We are facing a lot of new environmental requirements and restrictions from the European Union and the United States.”

However, Mr Chai said the proposal to ban just the processing sector of such products meant that mainland companies were exempt.

“This is unfair,” he said. “Why does the proposal apply only to manufacturers in the processing trade? Why does the country allow domestic companies to engage in polluting and energy-consuming production activities?”

The mainland has been seeking to reduce its record trade surplus by limiting processing exports.

State statistics show the Pearl River Delta has about 90,000 processing trade factories, of which 57,500 are owned by Hong Kong investors who collectively employ 9.6 million workers.

Since June last year, the Ministry of Commerce has eliminated tax rebates in two rounds on processing exports involving about 3,300 product types deemed to be heavy energy and resource consumers and heavy polluters.