Joint Statement on Sustainable Development for Lantau
3 March 2005
Since the government announced the Lantau Concept Plan last November, as
representatives of various civil society groups we have entered into
dialogue with government officials on various occasions with a view to
understanding the rationale behind the plan. Subsequent to close examination
of the plan and the information made available by the government, we have
jointly concluded that the Lantau Concept Plan contains serious flaws
because of the following:
1. Lack of justification for proposed developments
Before any facility should be considered on Lantau, the government should
provide firstly, a “needs analysis” to justify why the proposed facility is
essential to Hong Kong and how it can equitably benefit the community, and
secondly, a “site selection study” to justify why it is preferable to locate
the relevant facility on Lantau and not elsewhere. The limited information
provided by relevant government departments showed that neither thorough
analysis nor stakeholder consultation for each of the proposed facilities
have been conducted. As these proposed facilities cannot yet be justified by
scientific data and community support, it is premature to even consider a
draft concept plan for Lantau. For instance, some logistics industry
operators are doubtful of the economic viability of a new logistic park
given the planned expansion of related facilities at Chek Lap Kok, as well
as the lower labour, lower land costs and proximity to vendors in the
Mainland.
2. Failure to consider cumulative impacts
The proposed facilities in the Concept Plan, when put together, have a
cumulative impact on the environment of Lantau far more significant than
each of the individual facilities may have on their own. Not only has this
cumulative impact not been explained in the Concept Plan, but also many
other related developments, including the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge, the
proposed reclamation of 245 hectares for Container Terminal No. 10 off the
shore of Tai O, the proposed LNG Terminal at Soko Islands (which formed part
of the 2001 South West New Territories Development Strategy Review), are not
even included in the Concept Plan. The public is therefore being deprived of
the opportunity to consider the pros and cons of the Concept Plan in a
holistic manner. For instance, the proposed reclamations required for the
logistic park and the Container Terminal No. 10 combined will be over 355
hectares, equivalent to 9 times the size of West Kowloon Cultural District.
3. Deviation from community value and sustainable development principles
In recent years the Hong Kong community has demonstrated clearly, through
incidents ranging from the harbour reclamation debate to the latest
rejection of the Wanchai Mega Tower application, that we do not want “growth
at all costs”, but that only “quality growth” which respects the
environment, enhances our quality of life, and brings about equitable
benefits to the entire community will be welcome. Despite the proclaimed
objective of sustainable development, the Concept Plan failed to demonstrate
how it can achieve such objectives. On the contrary, many local residents
are unsure of how the Plan can bring about sustainable benefits. For
instance, Tung Chung residents are worried that the already poor air quality
there will be much worsened as the Plan fails to address any of their
concerns. With a lower population projection and an unresolved air quality
problem, it is also unclear why it is necessary or desirable for the
population in Tung Chung to expand by three times to 220,000.
4. Lack of in-depth and informed public participation
Although some government officials, notably from the Planning Department,
have been diligent in exchanging views with various community groups, the
lack of thorough information and the failure by the various responsible
departments to conduct coordinated consultation (e.g. Economic, Development
& Labour Bureau, Port Development Council, Tourism Commission) prevented the
public from informed debate of the various issues. For instance, the full
report on “Study on Hong Kong Port – Master Plan 2020” is not generally
available for public scrutiny. This casts in doubt the quality of public
input over the last three months. Furthermore, the format of forums and
information sessions also failed to allow the public to undertake in-depth
“envisioning” of Lantau’s future, which should have been a key objective at
this early stage of consultation.
Given the above deficiencies in the Plan, we collectively urge the
government to take the following steps regarding the Lantau Concept Plan and
the related developments proposed for Lantau:
Step 1: Withdraw the Lantau Concept Plan;
Step 2: For each of the proposed facilities, conduct full “needs analysis”
and “site selection analysis” and make the results available to the public
in full; Conduct public engagement exercise for each of the facilities
(including the HK-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge, CT 10 and LNG Terminal) and assess
public acceptance on a case-by-case basis;
Step 3: Draw up a Revised Lantau Concept Plan by incorporating the
long-established conservation needs and those publicly accepted facilities
deemed to be consistent with the vision for Lantau; Conduct a public
engagement exercise on the Revised Lantau Concept Plan, setting out
cumulative effects through the help of a strategic impact assessment and
focusing on the “envisioning” of Lantau in accordance with principles of
sustainable development and the community aspiration to Keep Lantau
Beautiful.
When considering sustainable development for the entire territory of Hong
Kong, we feel strongly that Lantau, due to its unique natural setting,
ecological assets and cultural heritage, should be endowed with a
“Conservation-First Status”. In other words, conservation should be regarded
as the default planning presumption for Lantau. Development concepts which
are not conservation-oriented should only be considered if they do not
compromise the conservation presumption for Lantau as a whole, and each
concept must be fully justified on its own. The recommendations contained in
the Lantau Conservation Plan, a document issued by six environmental groups
in 1998, should be incorporated in any revised Lantau concept plan.
To demonstrate the government’s commitment to sustainable development, we
urge the Chief Executive to take immediate steps to honour the government’s
commitment and put into effect the Lantau North (Extension) Country Park
gazetted and approved by the Country Parks Board in July 2001. From the
public’s perspective, this country park extension was intended to be a
mitigation of the port and airport development in North Lantau, which should
have been put in place even without the new concept plan.
* * *
Civil society groups supporting the Joint Statement:
Association of Tai O Environment and Development
Clear the Air
The Conservancy Agency, US
(Hong Kong Branch)
The Conservancy Association
Friends of the Earth (HK)
Green Across the Pacific,
Inc
Green Lantau Association
Green Peng Chau Association
Green Power
Green Sense
Green Students Council
Hong Kong Birdwatching
Society
Hong Kong Dolphinwatch Ltd.
Hong Kong Outdoors
Lantau Buffalo Association
Living Islands Movement
Sai Kung Association
Save our Shorelines
WWF Hong Kong
