The dragon is coming -- watch out for the
smoke ... and dust ... and
pollution. It's not the economy that Hong
Kong people should be worrying
about, it's the quality of life. James
Fahn reports.
Vincent, a typical Hong Kong yuppie, thinks the pundits have got it
wrong about what the territory will be like after the handover.
It's not the economy that's going to suffer; it may even improve, says
the successful Chinese lawyer, who's part of the growing band who ask
to remain anonymous when commenting on Hong Kong's future.
It's the people's quality of life - their environment and health,
their political and personal freedoms, the public services - that may
decline, he says, because a new, more heavy-handed, possibly more
corrupt government will be less responsive to public demands.
''Hong Kong will never be the same, the golden age has passed,"
Vincent laments resignedly, while he picks through his lunch at a trendy
Cajun restaurant in Hong Kong's mid-levels.
''It's like when a 16-year-old inherits a sports car: You can say he
shouldn't drive the car too fast, but you just know he's going to strip
the gears. You can fix the car but it will never be the same. That's
what the Chinese government will do to Hong Kong."
The view that the city's legendary vitality is threatened is echoed
by
environmentalists. Even today, the quality of life in the territory
is
not what it should be, says Peter Hills, director of Hong Kong
University's Centre of Urban Planning and Environmental Management.
Hong Kong has an excellent mass transit system, strong zoning laws and
good public health services, the latter largely responsible for the
low
infant mortality rate. But living space is cramped, there is a great
deal of air, noise and water pollution, and it takes long time to get
to
wilderness.
''Hong Kong epitomises the distinction between material wealth and
quality of life," says Hills.
Why should that be? Much of the fault belongs to the officials who
have governed the territory, but green activist Simon SC Chau also
pins
some of the blame on the people themselves, virtually all of whom came
to this city of migrants to make money and then move on. Hong Kong,
he
says, is ''a giant refugee camp".
The lack of commitment goes some way to explaining why the environment
in such a rich place can be so poor, in some cases shockingly so.
It was going to get worse anyway, no matter who was running the place.
Demographers estimate that the population will swell by at least 30
per
cent over the next 20 years, up from 6.3 million now to 8.2 million.
According to official estimates, air pollution, already the single
biggest source of environmental complaints, will increase by 50 per
cent
between the years 1994 and 2001.
A plan to make commercial vehicles shift from diesel fuel - the
largest source of pollution - to petrol was shot down last year because
of intense pressure from the taxi lobby.
Half of the diesel oil used in Hong Kong is low quality fuel smuggled
in from China, according to Lisa Hopkinson, spokeswoman for the Hong
Kong chapter of Friends of the Earth. ''This was the unspoken reason
why
commercial vehicles fought against the switch over to petrol," she
says.
Water pollution is equally serious. The 3.5 million residents of
Kowloon and Hong Kong may include some of the richest people on Earth,
but they still discharge their sewage directly into the sea.
A primary treatment plant, part of Hong Kong's Strategic Sewage
Disposal System (SSDS), is due to open soon but construction of the
waste water collection system is running years behind schedule.
Meanwhile, there is another growing threat to Hong Kong's environment:
pollution streaming across the border from China, much of it generated
by factories owned by Hong Kong investors who have fled to the mainland
in search of lower operating costs.
''Air and water pollution coming from across the border is becoming
a
big problem," says Hills. The Pearl River, for instance, is becoming
seriously polluted.
Take Deep Bay, on Hong Kong's northwestern border. On the mainland
China side, it serves as the cesspool for boomtown Shenzhen. On the
Hong
Kong side, it feeds the Mai Po wetlands, Hong Kong's most important
nature reserve.
''Last summer, the water quality in Deep Bay dropped dramatically, and
Mai Po is being affected," Hills warns.
The summer winds bring eye-stinging dust from Chinese construction
sites, while in the winter the winds change direction and Hong Kong
returns the favour.
''The environment is really a regional issue," says Hills.
The biggest fear of the territory's residents has been that, following
the handover, Chinese authorities will start to interfere with Hong
Kong's smooth-running bureaucracy - hence the support for separate
administrations.
But what if they have it wrong? How useful is it to clean up Hong
Kong's environment but then simply stand aside and watch as pollution
explodes just across the border? That's what Hong Kong's bureaucrats
seem intent on doing.
''The one-country, two-systems approach is not very good for the
environment," argues Hills. ''We only have one environment, it doesn't
recognise borders, but the one-country, two-systems approach means
there
will be different standards.
''The basic complication is political. Hong Kong has to be seen as
having some autonomy. So there may not be any joint planning exercises,
because it will be interpreted as giving China too much say over the
territory."
Michael Chiu, the Environmental Protection Department's assistant
director in charge of water and waste policy, says that the government
recognised this problem as long ago as 1983 when it set up a Hong
Kong-Guangdong liaison group.
''In the past we didn't even know what the other [Chinese] side was
going to do, for instance where they were going to put their power
plants," says Chiu. ''Now we exchange information all the time."
So far, however, that seems to be the limit of the cooperation, and
it
may not be enough. Hills points out that there is no regional planning
body, and although many Western countries are helping to fund
waste-water treatment plants in China, Hong Kong is not - even though
many Guangdong factories are owned by Hong Kong investors and
polluting Hong Kong's air and water.
''Hong Kong doesn't have that much money, and we have a lot of
problems to solve," maintains Chiu. ''We need to set our own house
in
order first. We still need funds for the SSDS, solid-waste incinerators,
medical incinerators and so on."
''Hong Kong has almost US$70 billion [Bt1.8 trillion] in reserves,"
retorts Hills. ''What's it stashing it away for? This government is
so
penny-pinching it's positively Victorian!"
''A few years ago, people in Hong Kong would have been horrified at
the notion of spending money to clean up the surrounding region: there
was so much fear that Hong Kong's financial reserves would get [frittered]
away after 1997," says Hopkinson. ''But it may be more cost-effective
[for Hong Kong to help China clean up]. Japan, for instance, is giving
aid to clean up Chinese power plants in order to prevent acid rain
there."
Chiu, the government's man, remains skeptical. ''Under the Basic Law
there are still two systems, our counterparts are not to interfere
in
Hong Kong," he insists. ''In their waters, they will stick to their
environmental standards, in our waters we will stick to ours."
But it's the same water. ''Sure," he replies, ''just as Canada and the
US share the same waters, and the countries of Europe, but they all
have their own standards, too."
There are other cases where the Hong Kong bureaucracy's determination
to remain independent has exacerbated environmental problems. A fuel
depot for the new airport is being built within the territory's dolphin
reserve even though there is a more appropriate site on a nearby Chinese
island. According to Bill Leverett, director of Hong Kong DolphinWatch,
Hong Kong officials said the Chinese site was ruled out for ''security"
reasons.
Then there is Hong Kong's state-of-the-art chemical waste treatment
centre, which only serves the territory because of restrictions imposed
by the Basel Convention, an international treaty regulating transboundary
movements of hazardous waste. Will Chinese factories be allowed to
send
their waste to the treatment plant after the handover, rather than
dumping it illicitly or storing it haphazardly?
''I'm not sure," Chiu says cautiously. ''We'll have to look into
whether the Basel Convention recognises us as one or two countries.
The
spirit of the treaty is that we have to take care of ourselves first,
and we don't have a lot of spare capacity right now."
Hopkinson, however, points out that the plant was designed prior to
the flight of industry from Hong Kong into China. This exodus, along
with the escalating cost of treating hazardous waste, should lead to
a
reduction in the volume of Hong Kong's industrial waste, resulting
in
spare capacity in the future.
Chau has already concluded that, ''if you want to save Hong Kong, you
have to save China. Even if we clean up Hong Kong, Guangdong is the
source of the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the radiation
we
are exposed to," a reference to a Chinese nuclear plant built at nearby
Daya Bay.
In the end, the one-country, two-systems policy may be just a
temporary barrier to cross-border cooperation. Hills predicts that
joint
planning efforts could arise after a transition period of two or three
years, and Hopkinson believes that improved communication between the
two sides
will in the long run be the one environmental benefit of Hong Kong's
return to China.
Meanwhile, attention will focus on what the new Hong Kong
administration headed by chief executive Tung Chee-Hwa will do. He
has
already made it clear that the environment is not a top priority. His
only statements
on the subject have been to suggest that the SSDS may be delayed and
to
question the ''polluter pays" principle.
The transient nature of Hong Kong people has robbed the environmental
movement of part of its natural constituency.
''If you talk to wealthy people in Taipei, they'll be concerned about
the environment because their grandchildren will be living there,"
says
Chau, a founder of the Hong Kong environmental group Green Power. ''But
the well-off in Hong Kong don't care because their grandchildren will
be
living in Vancouver. There is no sense of commitment."
This refugee mind-set may change now that Hong Kong is returning to
the Chinese fold. Living in a country rather than a colony should make
Hong Kong residents more grounded, more committed to their home. On
the
other hand, a feeling of helplessness may grow.
''There is a sense of futility. Just look at how the change of
sovereignty is described: we are 'handed over'," says Chau. ''We didn't
want the nuclear plant [built by China at Daya Bay], in fact there
was a huge
signature campaign against it. But it was forced on us. So it's
difficult to get people to fight. We have learned to live with the
tiger next door."
Nor have the technocrats who ruled the crown colony done much for the
environment, Chau continues, not even Chris Patten, a former environment
minister in the UK. ''The secretaries in charge of public health,
housing and so on - they're efficient, and they're clean in the sense
of
being not corrupt, but they're not green at all. Being green is
completely alien to them.
''Financial success is based on short-sightedness and self-interest.
Hong Kong has been successful because we are selfish, which is obviously
a deterrent to green thinking.
''The environment remains a low priority for the people. There are so
many other things to worry about - passports, housing, the loss of
freedom. But things are beginning to change, even if it's hard to
quantify.
Look at the advertisements for fashion or for flats. Ten years ago,
they
promoted convenience and modern, hi-tech facilities. Today, the images
are all natural. People are dreaming about nature again. Nature used
to
mean mosquitoes, dirt, heat, now they know it's pleasant.
''There's still a big gap with China, however," adds Chau, who often
goes on speaking tours of the mainland as head of the Vegetarians
Society of Hong Kong and the Produce Green Foundation. ''As a Chinese
national,
I am ashamed when I see Chinese people eating birds' nests, shark fins,
bear paws and tiger bones. They simply do it because it is a fad.
''But even there, changes are happening. The first truly green
independent NGO in China was recently started in Beijing by a radio
DJ
and a journalist. The first thing they did was to ask people to bring
their
caged birds to a meeting and release them. That is a big change in
Chinese culture, and an important one.
''It's good to persuade the government to follow certain policies, but
it's more important to change the way the people think. We have to
change from the heart."