The First Step Is A New Mindset - Albert Lai

When the Conservancy Association was established thirty-five years ago, one of its early missions was to remove the serious trade waste from tanneries polluting River Indus in the northern New Territories. After years of campaigning the government simply moved the tanneries to a designated industrial zone for polluting factories in Kwai Chung. Today not only the tanneries were long gone as a result of changed economics - many of them relocated across the border, even the designated industrial zone had become part of the world's busiest container terminal.

In the World Summit for Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg last autumn, it was re-affirmed by world leaders and the civil society alike that environmental problems should not be dealt with in isolation, but instead an integrated approach taking into account of socio-economic needs and the well-being of future generations should be adopted.

To put it simply, the remedial, problem-fixing approach of the past needs to be replaced by a forward-looking, resource management approach.

Using River Indus as an example, were the tanneries still exist it should no longer be seen as a wastewater treatment problem, but rather as an issue of water resource management (How can factories use water wisely? Can wastewater be reused or recycled in a cost-effective manner?) and of land resource management (Can the economic gains of the tanneries compensate for the diminution in ecological value of the land and river? Can the local communities benefit from better land use?)

Yet amazingly, the government institutional framework that deals with environmental issues - now manifested in markedly different forms, remain largely the same after three decades. By and large, the problems have changed, the philosophies used in tackling the problems have changed, but the problem-solvers have not.

The new perspective can be usefully applied to all environmental resources including water, air, solid waste, energy, land, biodiversity as well as other natural and cultural heritage. The number of government departments performing significant functions in this area are mind-boggling: Environmental Protection Department, Water Supplies Department, Drainage Services Department, Electrical and Mechanical Services Department, Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Planning Department, Lands Department and more.

For those familiar with the operation of the many government departments involved, there are other more urgent reasons to argue for a major institutional reform.

The separation of functions among numerous departments often leads to confused lines of responsibilities. For major projects such as the Harbour Area Treatment Scheme (previously termed Strategic Sewage Disposal Scheme), so many departments are involved during the decade-long process of feasibility study, planning, design, engineering, tendering, construction, operation and monitoring that, in the end, no single government unit takes responsibility for the entire scheme. Responsible officials can often seek refuge in the bureaucratic maze when criticised. Consultants and contractors may easily take advantage of the confusion when substandard work is delivered.

A direct consequence of over-departmentalisation is inefficiency. Due to the separation of planning, implementation and execution functions, investment decisions and operational controls are often not optimised for highest possible efficiency. This problem is evident in the management of the water cycle - artificially segregated into potable water supply, sewage treatment and drainage. Integrated water resource management, an internationally accepted approach, is simply not practicable under the current structure. This explains why wastewater reuse remains an alien concept until very recently. Given the many billions of dollars spent by these departments collectively every year, cost savings that may arise from potential efficiency gains can be substantial.

The third problem concerns role conflict. The different roles between an executing agency that plans and implements a project and a regulator that specifies performance requirements and monitors project outcomes are often merged in one department. In particular the traditional function of EPD as a regulator is eroded because after the many years of expansion it now plays multiple roles in planning and execution, for example in the control of waste and the overseeing of waste disposal contractors. The department will need exceptional courage to prosecute contractors under its own guidance and supervision when such contractors breach statutory requirements. No doubt the current arrangement is an inducement to lax control and poor execution.

Resource conservation is another victim under the existing institutional framework. Except for a partial portfolio under AFCD, no department is given a clear mandate for conservation of resources such as water, waste and energy. Conservation efforts are often relegated to an after-thought in policy formulation. Lack of coordination among departments, which share fragmented responsibilities, makes matters worse. Since the Planning Department and Lands Department come under another bureau separate from the Environment, Transport and Works Bureau which has the responsibility for nature conservation policy, any sensible conservation effort that involves changes in planning and lands policy faces an until-now insurmountable obstacle.

One of the basic principles of sustainable development concerns public access to information and participation in policy making. The current institutional design has not allowed for the level of transparency, public accountability and consensus building necessary for sustainable development. One notable project suffering from such institutional weakness is the Strategic Sewage Disposal Scheme. Public distrust of the government's decision-making process led to a loss of confidence and ultimately the collapse of the scheme two years ago. A high level of scepticism towards environmental policy making is also doing a disservice to the government: it finds hard to persuade the public of the merits of some worthy causes, such as the removal of perverse subsidies, the application of polluters-pay-principle or the adoption of desirable trade-offs for nature conservation.

There is one obvious answer to all these problems: a major institutional reform in the environment and resource management portfolio.

The reform should be structured on the basis of three pillars: eco-efficiency in resource management, operational efficiency in delivery and access to participation by the public. In future articles the Conservancy Association will argue for the establishment of three separate authorities: a Water Authority, a Waste Authority and a Conservation Authority in addition to a reformed Environmental Protection Department to act as an independent regulator.

Albert Kwong Tak Lai
Chairman, Conservancy Association

An edited version of this article was published at the South China Morning Post on 6 March 2003.