|
ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTICE 環境 |
Bryan Bachner considers the history of Hong Kong’s environmental governance system, reckons with its present and sets out a proposal for its future. He argues for the formation within the existing court structure of a new division dedicated exclusively to land and environmental issues
Introduction
The establishment of a sound environmental law is critical to Hong Kong’s future economic development. In light of an absence of exploitable biological diversity and remarkable commercial growth, the Hong Kong economy is overly reliant on the service industry. As a consequence of the service sector’s seemingly unlimited appetite for urban development in terms of office, residential and public space, land has become the most valuable natural resource in the territory. It is essential therefore that the policy for the land and environment be sustainable. Over the last thirty years, Hong Kong’s environmental planning regime has achieved considerable political and legal success. The fact that environmental protection is recognized by the government as a prominent policy objective is not an accident, but the result of a concerted and determined effort by dedicated professionals. However, whether the present administrative system and its entrenched historical institutional attitudes are in the optimal position to account for the newly emerging political dimensions of environmental management is a matter of serious concern.
In recognition of:
the time is ripe to explore a rethinking of the environmental decision-making process. The purpose of this essay is to query whether, in light of the significant impact of environmental law on Hong Kong’s quality of life and the complex issues social and political demands will bring to bear on the existing comprehensive regulatory framework, the Hong Kong judiciary should establish a specialist environmental court.
At Issue
The question of whether a specialist environmental court is appropriate for Hong Kong should be divided up into two parts. The first question that needs to be addressed is whether a critical mass of environmental planning law exists to make an environmental court necessary. If the answer is yes, than we need to ask ourselves whether the laws that shape our decision-making and adjudicatory system adequately deal with the vexing social and business dimensions inherent in Hong Kong’s nascent environmental politics. In other words, is the current process and method of environmental dispute resolution suitable and adequate? I will examine judicial decisionmaking as it relates to the environment, the present administration of environmental appeals and the scope of public participation in the decision-making system.
Critical Mass
Historically, in Hong Kong, there has been an absence of political will to implement environmental policy and law. Since the late 1970’s, however, the government and its environmental executive arm have taken an active role in mobilizing political and financial resources to improve a deteriorating environment. It is necessary to be mindful of Hong Kong’s historical disposition toward environmentalism in order to appreciate present progress.
The History of Environmentalism in Hong Kong
It is fair to say that since its political origins, Hong Kong governance strategy has been characterized by a laissez-faire attitude toward pollution control and town planning. During the early part of Hong Kong’s history, this was illustrated through an institutional attitude that a government governs best that governs least. One Hong Kong historian, Geoffrey Sayer, describes the approach toward environmental protection of the late 19th and early 20th century as utterly passive, suggesting that the social culture of both the English and Chinese communities in Hong Kong were simply not interested in investing in the preservation of public areas. HongKong 1862-1919: Years of Discretion (1975), p 57.
Pollution Control
Even as late as 1983, Hong Kong legislators argued that minimal governmental intervention was optimal because the government had no expertise in environmental affairs. For instance, in the debate concerning the enactment of the current Air Pollution Control Ordinance (Cap 311), lawmakers overlook the social costs that pollution imposes upon the community, rather than seeking to legislate an appropriate balance between the competing social and business interests. Legislators seemed unimpressed with the ability of government officers to establish and enforce suitable environmental standards. They also railed against the Hong Kong Government imposing international environmental criteria, derived from strong economies, upon the developing domestic economy of Hong Kong. Hong Kong Hansard, 27 April 1983, p 850, 863. While legislation eventually passed, this viewpoint that extensive governmental intervention would adversely interfere with Hong Kong’s economic growth seems to have been incorporated into the legislation.
For instance, environmental authorities themselves bemoaned the fact that the existing legislation diluted their own powers to such an extent that it was difficult to reach the environmental objectives the legislation was designed to achieve. Paul Holmes explained that the efficacy of the enforcement of the Water Pollution Control Ordinance (Cap 358) is not knowable because the law provides no specific control over treatment technologies but provides a range of published standards that are imposed regardless of the origin of the effluent. He goes on to say that the slow pace of implementation is consistent with the government’s policy of minimal interference with industry. He concludes that the flexible nature of the legislation has hampered its enforcement. ‘Policies and Principles in Hong Kong’s Water Pollution Control Legislation’ 26(7) Water Science Technology (1992) p 1912-1913.
Peter Hills, the most prominent commentator on environmentalism in Hong Kong and Bill Barron, another leading environmental observer, also express skepticism toward the modern ‘command and control’ environmental regime. Under such a system the enforcement authority retains full discretion, as provided in the legislation, to define standards and enforce compliance with them through a system of licensing controls. They perceive such a legal system as problematic on the basis that a conflict of interest may arise where the government’s industrial policy is inconsistent with sound environmental policy. ‘Hong Kong: Can the Dragon Clean its Nest?’ 32(8) Environment (1990) p 17. While observers remain dubious of environmental and planning authorities’ capacity to fulfill the spirit of the legislation at all times, they cannot criticize the vastness of its scope.
Since the 1972 Stockholm Conference, environmental policy has been a permanent part of the governmental political agenda. Hong Kong’s environmental institutional infrastructure is considerable. In 1974, the Advisory Committee on Environmental Pollution (EPCOM) acquired the portfolios of a variety of committees dealing with land, water, air and noise. In 1975 the Environmental Branch was established to manage land, transport and environmental activities. In 1977 the government appointed Stuart Reed to head up what was then called the Environmental Protection Unit (EPU), under the auspices of the Environmental Branch, with responsibilities to formulate policy and law. In 1978, EPCOM was replaced by the Environmental Protection Advisory Committee.
In 1981 the Environmental Branch, then a part of the Home Affairs Branch, was disbanded. A year later, the Health and Welfare Bureau took over environmental policy concerns. Also in 1981, the EPU was re-classified the Environmental Protection Agency. In 1984 EPCOM was revived. In 1986, the Environmental Protection Department was established. In 1988, the Planning, Environment and Lands Branch took over policy responsibilities for the environment. In 1994, EPCOM’s environmental mission was expanded to include issues related to sustainability and its name changed to the Advisory Council of the Environment. In the late 90’s, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries was renamed the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation to reflect the fact that its responsibilities included not only husbandry of natural resources but also their conservation. The Bureau of Environment and Food took over the environmental policy portfolio, but soon thereafter, the newly formed Bureau of Environment, Transport and Works Bureau acquired it. Recently, the Home Affairs Bureau re-entered the environmental fray by establishing within itself the Sustainable Development Unit with a view to creating a Sustainable Development Council.
The substantive origins for the modern regulatory framework of environmental protection in Hong Kong began in earnest in the early 1980’s. Prior to that there was a 1951 Clean Air Ordinance, the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap 228) (and its regulation of night soil amongst other items) as well as a few sanitary provisions. In 1980 the Water Pollution Control Ordinance and the Waste Disposal Ordinance (Cap 354) was put into effect. In 1983 the Air Pollution Control Ordinance was established. In 1988, the government created statutory powers to minimize noise pollution through the Noise Control Ordinance (Cap 400). In 1989, in response to international obligations arising from the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Hong Kong enacted the Ozone Layer Protection Ordinance (Cap 403). In 1997, the Hong Kong government enacted its most important environmental legislation, the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap 499), a hard fought legislative initiative designed to enforce previously difficult-to-enforce administrative environmental impact assessments. Additionally, a collection of nongovernmental measures are utilized in Hong Kong including economic measures (eg sewage charges), voluntary compliance schemes (eg ISO 14000) and corporate environmental reports (eg http://www.mtrcorp.com/eng/sustainability/introduction_e.htm).
Town Planning
In addition to pollution control, town planning is an area of concern. A review of the early development of governance over the land market in Hong Kong indicates a laissez-faire approach toward land resources. While, since 1841 government has retained ownership over land, their control over its uses has been minimal, limited to Crown Lease provisions, reflecting an open and flexible approach intended to cause minimal interference with land sales and control of land uses. Anton Cooray explains the evolution of early planning law in Hong Kong as piecemeal and without plan, directed toward present concerns and not appropriate to meet the requirements of later times. Town Planning in Halsbury’s Laws of Hong Kong (2000) vol 25. Finally after 73 years, the Hong Kong administration enacted its first Town Planning Scheme. The inaugural 1939 Town Planning Ordinance did not stray from this laissez-faire approach to land use through the limitation of its application to existing or potential urban areas of Hong Kong. It included no enforcement provisions that would require compliance with environmentally acceptable standards. In 1991, amendments to the Town Planning Ordinance embraced environmental concerns. For instance, Chapter 9 of the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines provides for the incorporation of environmental considerations into public and private developments. The law establishes a Town Planning Board with responsibility to promote the health, safety and welfare of the community through the preparation of urban and rural plans. The law also regulates greenbelts, coastal protection areas and special protection areas. The government may designate within the planning regime A Site of Special Scientific Interest.
The environmental planning law regime for Hong Kong is far-reaching. The devil, however, is in the details and it is to the nature of the decisionmaking process that we turn to next.
[Part 2 of this article will appear in next month’s Hong Kong Lawyer]
Bryan Bachner
Associate Professor of Law
City University of Hong Kong
Chair, Hong Kong Environmental
Law Association (HKELA)
Note: The remarks in this essay are personal and do not represent the views of HKELA. The research for this article arose out of an Interdisciplinary Research Grant by the City University of Hong Kong.
由本期起，Bryan Bachner 將一連三期在本刊撰文，探討本地環境管治制度的發展史及現狀，並指出香港有急切需要成立專門處理土地及環境問題的法院分部
引言
制定完善的環境法是香港的未來經濟發展的關鍵所在。在缺乏可予開發的生態資源加上乏善足陳的商業發展下，香港經濟現正過份著重服務界。這個界別對於市區的商業、住宅和公眾用地的需求可說是無窮無盡，而土地早已成為最有價值的本地天然資源。有見及此，訂立可持續的土地及環境政策，實在不可或缺。過去三十年，本地的環境規劃機制在政治和法律層面均取得了驕人的成就，而政府將保護環境認定為主要施政目標之一，絕不是因為僥倖或巧合，而是各個專業界別的決心和共同努力的成果。縱然如此，現行的行政制度和根深蒂固的制度化心態是否能應付環境管理所產生的新政治課題，是值得我們認真反思的。
既然存在著下列各項：
一、 公眾日益要求參與環境過程；
二、 需要確保決策過程在完全知情下有效率地進行；
三、 可持續發展政策瀕臨制度化；及
四、 香港應把握進一步提昇其在環保方面的國際聲譽，
現在便是重新考慮環境決策過程的良機。本文旨在探討以下課題：環境法律對香港人的生活質量影響甚大，而社會和政治上的需求為現行的環境監管機制帶來了不少複雜的問題。在這些前提下，香港司法界應否設立專責環境事務法院呢？
涉及哪些問題？
專責環境事務法院是否適用於香港的問題，應分為兩個部份。首個需要探討的問題是：香港是否存在著數量足以支持設立環境事務法院的環境規劃法律？假如這種法律存在，我們繼而要考慮：為本地的環境決策過程和審裁機制設立框架的法律，是否足以照顧仍在發展階段的本地環境政治所固有且令人傷透腦筋的社會和商業層面呢？
環境保護主義在香港的發展
昔日香港各界均欠缺執行環境政策和法律所需的政治意願。然而，自 1970 年代起，政府和行政機關一直積極動員政治和財政資源，以期挽救不斷惡化的本地自然環境。我們探討現況和將來前，應回顧一下環境保護主義在香港的歷史發展。
從開埠起，香港政府的管治方針可說是採取自由放任的態度，對於污染管制和城市規劃等問題亦不例外。香港開埠初期，政府所抱的態度是「最少的干預，便是最佳的管治」。一名專門研究香港歷史的學者 Geoffrey Soyer先生曾經把香港政府於十九世紀末至二十世紀初對於環境保護的態度形容為「完全被動」，這意味著當時本地的中英社群對於投資在維護公用地方項目均不感興趣（見 Hong Kong 1862-1919: Years of Discretion（1975 年）第 57 頁）。
污染管制
即使到了 1983 年，本地的立法者仍堅稱政府最好能作出最少干預，原因是環境事務並非政府的專長所在。舉例說，在關乎制定現行的《空氣污染管制條例》（第 311 章）的辯論過程中，立法者忽略了環境污染對於社會帶來的代價，亦沒有尋求在相衝的社會和商界利益之間得取平衡。立法者看來不相信政府官員有能力建立和執行合適的環境標準。立法者亦批評政府將源於經濟發達地區的國際環境準則強加於只在發展中的香港本土經濟體系之上（見 Hong Kong Hansard，1983 年 4 月 27 日，第 850 及 863 頁）。雖然上述條例最終得到通過，但認為政府過度干預將窒礙香港經濟發展的看法，似乎獲納入該條例之內。
舉例說，環境當局本身亦曾埋怨其權力遭現存法例淡化，以至法例無法達到預期的環保目標。Paul Holmes 先生在 'Policies and Principles in Hong Kong's Water Pollution Control Legislation']載於 26(7) Water Science Technology (1992 年) 第1912 至 1913 頁）一文中曾經指出，《水污染管制條例》（第 358 章）的執行工作欠缺成效，原因是該法例沒有對污水處理技術作出具體管制，而該法例所施加的一系列標準，根本沒有顧及廢水的來源。Holmes 先生繼而認為，法例的緩慢實施速度，正好與政府對業界的不干預政策相一致。Holmes 先生的結論是，有關法例的彈性，對於執法工作構成了障礙。
兩位舉足輕重的本地環境評論員Peter Hills 先生及 Bill Barron 先生亦對當代的「命令與管制」式環保體制表示懷疑。在這體制下，執法機構享有法例所賦予的十足酌情權，以訂立各項標準及透過發牌制度以確保有關人士遵守該等標準。Hills 先生及 Barron 先生認為，這種法制的問題在於，一旦政府的工業政策與良好環保方針出現分歧，便會形成利益衝突的局面。（見 'Hong Kong: Can the Dragon Clean its Nest?'一文，載於 32(8) Environment (1990 年) 第17 頁）。縱然如此，即使評論員對於環境及規劃當局是否有能力恆常地體現有關法例的精神表示懷疑，該些法例的範圍之廣，仍是不容指責的。
自 1972 年斯德哥爾摩會議以來，環境政策一直是政府方針的主要部份。事實上，香港在環境方面的政府架構規模是令人囑目的。早於 1974 年，政府已成立環境污染諮詢委員會（以下簡稱「環諮會」），接管當時各個負責處理土地、水、空氣和噪音污染事項的委員會的工作。翌年，政府成立了環境科，負責管理土地、交通和環境活動。1977 年，政府委任了 Stuart Reed 先生為當時環境科轄下的環境保護組的總監，負責制訂政策和法律。1978 年，環諮會被環境保護諮詢委員會取代。
到了1981 年，當時屬於民政事務科的環境科解散。一年後，當時的衛生福利局接管了環境政策方面的工作。亦於1981 年，環境保護組被重新定為環境保護局。1984 年，環諮會重新運作；1986 年，政府亦成立了環境保護署。1988 年，政府的規劃環境地政科承接了制訂環境政策的責任。1994 年，環諮會改名為環境諮詢局，其工作目標亦擴大至包括可持續發展事宜。到了九十年代末期，漁農署改名為漁農自然護理署，以反映該署的職能既包括管理自然資源，亦包括護理該等資源。制訂環境政策的工作初時由環境及食物局負責，不久後轉由新成立的環境運輸及工務局負責。最新，民政事務局再次參與環境事務，自行成立持續發展組，並打算設立可持續發展委員會。
現時本地環境保護監管架構的起源，其實可追溯至八十年代初期。昔日的相關法例包括了 1951 年的《清潔空氣條例》、《簡易程序治罪條例》（第 228 章）（包括當中監管糞便的規定）以及少量關於公共衛生的條文。《水污染管制條例》及《廢物處置條例》（第 354 章）於 1980 年生效；《空氣污染管制條例》亦於 1983 年生效。1988 年，政府進一步制定《噪音管制條例》（第 400 章），訂立各項法定權力，以期儘量減少噪音污染。1989 年，政府制定《保護臭氧層條例》（第 403 章），以履行它在《1987 年關於損耗臭氧層物質的蒙特利爾議定書》下的國際責任。1997 年，政府制定了至為重要的環境法例 – 《環境影響評估條例》（第 499 章）。這項經過激烈辯論而得到通過的法例，旨在實施早前難以施行的環境影響評估行政程序。除此以外，香港亦實行各項非政府措施，包括經濟措施（例如徵收排污費）、自願參與的標準計劃（例如國際標準化組織的 ISO 14000）及公司環境報告（例如 http://www.mtrcorp.com/eng/sustainability/introduction_e.htm）。
境市規劃
除了污染管制外，城市規劃亦是備受關注的項目。我們若然回顧香港土地市場管治的早期發展，便會發現政府對於土地資源採取自由放任政策。香港政府自 1841 年以來一直擁有本地的土地，但它對於土地的使用的管控則極少，僅限於官契所訂的條款和條件。這顯示了政府的開放和靈活政策，其用意是對土地的出售和使用施以最少的干預。Anton Cooray 先生曾經指出，香港早期的規劃法律發展緩慢和雜亂無章，只顧及當前的需要，不能與時並進（見 Halsbury掇 Laws of Hong Kong（2000 年）第 25 冊）。過了七十三年後，香港政府才首次制訂城市規劃計劃。《城市規劃條例》（第 131 章）最初於 1939 年制定時，沒有偏離政府對於土地使用的自由放任政策，因為該條例訂明只適用於當時存在或潛在的市區，而且不包含要求各界達到既定環境標準的執行性條文。上述條例於 1991 年進行修訂時，開始顧及到環境方面的考慮。舉例說，香港規劃標準指引第 9 章要求公營及私人發展項目顧及環境因素。新法例亦成立了城市規劃委員會，其職責是透過擬備市區和郊區計劃，促進社區的健康、安全和福利。此外，新法例對綠化地帶、海岸保護區及特別保護區進行規管。政府有權指定任何地方為「具特別科學價值的地方」，作為規劃策略的一部份。
本地環境規劃法制的範圍甚廣，而其細節往往產生問題。在本刊下一期的文章中，筆者將探討政府的環境決策過程。
Bryan Bachner
香港城市大學法律學院副教授
香港環境法協會主席
註：本文所表達的觀點純屬筆者個人意見，並不代表香港環境法協會的立場。本文的資料研究工作，乃在香港城市大學科際研究基金資助下進行。
【本文第二部份將於本刊下期刊登。】