Key
Comments |
Current
Practice |
Suggested
Improvement Measures |
1. On the Public Consultation Process
Overall
speaking, many stakeholder groups opined that the public
consultation process has been much improved and more
robust when compared with the pre-EIA Ordinance stage,
nevertheless, there are yet quite a large amount of
comments and suggestions.
- Whilst
there is no legal requirement to send a detailed response
to the public comments received, some suggested that
the comments should be acknowledged and addressed
and responded for future reference;
- Some
Provisional District Board members suggested that
public comments received should better be uploaded
onto the EIA Ordinance website so that PDB members
could know the concerns of the locals;
|
-
Under section 5 of the Ordinance, there is an opportunity
for the public and Advisory Council on Environment
(ACE) to comment on the project profile before an
EIA study brief is issued by the Director, or before
a permission is given to the applicant to apply directly
for an environmental permit. There will also be an
opportunity under section 7 of the Ordinance for the
public and ACE to comment on the EIA report before
it is approved. These are further described as follows:
-
On the day following the lodging of the application
for a study brief with the Director, the applicant
is required to advertise the availability of the project
profile. The public and the ACE may comment on the
project profile on environmental issues covered by
the Technical Memorandum within 14 days and Director
of Environmental Protection will take into consideration
the comments in the drafting of the study brief.
-
When an EIA report is considered by the Director of
Environmental Protection as suitable for public inspection,
the applicant will be required to advertise the availability
of the EIA report and make the EIA report available
at specified locations for the public to comment for
a period of 30 days. The ACE may give its comments
on the EIA report to the Director within a period
of 60 days in parallel to the 30 days' public exhibition
period.
-
Upon receipt of public comments, EPD will send out
an acknwledgement letter within 3 working days.
-
EIA reports and project profiles can be accessed at
the EIA Ordinance Register Office, relevant District
Offices and the EPD Resource Centre (Wan Chai and
Tsuen Wan). To facilitate public access, project profiles
and EIA reports are also placed on the EIA Ordinance
website during the exhibition period.
-
The decisions of the Director will also be placed
on the Register and the website for inspection by
the public.
|
To
enhance public participation during the consultation
process, in additional to the current practice, the
following actions are proposed to facilitate access
to information, transmission of comments and thus the
public consultation process:
- Relevant
Provisional District Boards/their members will be
notified directly on the availability of the respective
project profiles and EIA reports;
-
Public comments can be lodged via E-mail or Internet;
- Responses
to public comments received will be placed on the
EIA Ordinance Register Office and uploaded to the
EIA Ordinance Website for public information.
- Enhance
communication and knowledge sharing through the setting
up of a "web-based interest group" so that
members of the public can receive information and
news on EIA Ordinance applications or any latest guidance
notes issued.
- To
enhance more public participation, project profiles
submit in future wll have to be in both English and
Chinese.
- Similarly,
EIA study briefs to be issued will also be in both
English and Chinese to facilitate and encourage more
public participation.
|
2.
On the Operation of the ACE before and after the implementation
of the EIA Ordinance
|
-
Apart from the current practice on consultation with
ACE as outline on page 1 above, the Administration
has issued an Advice Note on EIA Sub-committee of
ACE and ACE Paper 8/98 "Implementation of EIA
Ordinance" which have laid down detailed steps
regarding consultation with the ACE. Copy of the Advice
Note is available via the EIA Ordinance Website.
-
It is also a normal practice that during the discussion
of an EIA report at ACE meeting, EPD will give a brief
account of the public comments received so far.
-
As the authority under the EIA Ordinance, Director
of Environmental Protection will give full consideration
to the views of the public and the ACE during the
various consultation process under the EIA Ordinance.
The ACE would be briefed on the residents' views when
commenting on the EIA report. The views of local residents
will be considered by Director of Environmental Protection
before giving the approval under the EIA Ordinance.
|
To
further enhance the consultation with the ACE, the following
actions will be taken
-
The Advice Notes on Consultation with ACE will be
widely distributed to all potential government and
private sector applicants to enhance better understanding
of the operation of the EIA Sub Committee.
-
The proposed action 3 on page 1 will include comments
during the public exhibition of project profiles.
Publication of comments on project profiles received
on the Website will facilitate ACE members' understanding
of the local concerns.
|
3.
On the time required before and after the implementation
of the EIA Ordinance
Some
applicants, seeking advice on draft EIA reports before
the formal application suggested that clear arrangements
be set down to provide guidance on the practical response
time frame so as to facilitate project programming;
-
Some
applicants including a major utility company found
that with a clear timeframe set out in the EIA Ordinance,
they were more sure about the processing time required
by the Director of Environmental Protection. This
has helped them programme their works. Before the
implementation of the EIA Ordinance, there was no
such clear time timeframe.
|
The
processing time required before and after the implementation
of the EIA Ordinance is summarised below
Application
under EIAO
|
Statutory
Time Limit (days)
|
Average
Time Taken (as at 31.8.1999) (days)
|
Average
Time Taken before EIAO** (days)
|
EIA
Study Brief |
45 |
41.3 |
60 |
Permission
to Directly Apply for Environmental
Permit |
45 |
38.8 |
60 |
The
Authority's Review of EIA Report |
60 |
51.1 |
90 |
Public
& ACE Consultation |
60 |
34.6 |
90 |
The
Authority's reply after consultation |
30 |
16.6 |
N/A |
Environmental
Permit |
30 |
26.7 |
N/A |
Variation
of Environmental Permit |
30 |
25.0 |
N/A |
Further
Environmental Permit |
30 |
27.8 |
N/A |
Surrender
of Environmental Permit |
N/A |
1.0 |
N/A |
|
NB:
** Data extracted from a paper "Assessment of Economic
Implication Arising from the Proposed EIA Legislation"
by Financial Services Branch
Documents
are immediately placed on the EIA Ordinance Public Register
for public inspection.
On
the other hand, the present arrangements of the review
of draft EIA reports are only administrative and upon
request from the applicants.
|
It
can be seen that the present average response time for
statutory applications is well below the statutory limit.
Regarding the time used by Director of Environment Protection
after ACE consultation, the statistics for the actual
time used indicated that Director of Environment Protection
only used 16.6 days out of the 30 days available. Nevertheless,
to strength the arrangements for applicants to seek
advice form EPD before formal application, it is proposed
that:
|
4.
Effectiveness and Efficiency of the EIA Process
-
On
the other hand, some opined that the applicants
should ensure that all key concerns have been properly
addressed in the EIA studies in accordance with
the Technical Memorandum on EIA Process. The EPD
and Advisory Council on Environment should not be
expected to play a role as report quality controller
This would allow the EPD to process the EIA reports
more efficiently;
|
To
help the applicants and their consultants to go through
the EIA process, the following publications have been
made available for use in hard copies and via the EIA
Ordinance Website:
In
additional to the above,
|
To
further enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of
the EIA process
-
EPD will as mentioned above issue a set of guidance
notes on the operation of the Environmental Study
Management Group before and after the statutory
applications;
-
EPD will set up a "cyber EIAO help bench"
to help proponents and their consultants on common
issues or enquiries they often encountered during
their preparation of project profiles and EIA reports;
-
To facilitate the public and consultants to know
more about the status of various projects and promote
the sharing of knowledge and experiences, EPD will
set up a "cyber EIAO project template"
for major projects that have commenced construction;
-
To promote communication and experiences sharing,
EPD will set up "EIAO users liaison groups"
for both government and private sector proponents
and an "EIAO practitioners liaison group"
for consultants. These groups will also work together
on developing the "cyber EIAO help bench".
-
More guidance notes and information materials on
areas of interest which can help applicants and
their consultants will be prepared. Details of the
proposed cyber EIAO help bench and project template
are contained in Appendix E
|
5.
Choice of prescriptive vs. performance based environmental
permit conditions
-
To
avoid too much details in EIA reports and environmental
permits, some project proponents suggested to use
environmental management system to replace the detailed
prescriptive requirements so that the permit holders
and their contractors could have more flexibility
on how to achieve the same environmental performance;
-
Some
attendees were specifically concerned about the
implications of prescriptive environmental permit
conditions for Design-Build-Operate contracts. But,
others commented that conditions were originated
from the EIA report for the project. It, therefore,
could not be more prescriptive than what had been
put down in the EIA report. The provision on variation
of permit conditions already allows flexibility
for future changes.
|
The
purpose of the EIA Ordinance is to prevent environmental
damage, rather than just rectifying the problems after
they occur. The current practice is to follow the guidelines
laid down in the Technical Memorandum on EIA Process
and Schedule 4 of the EIA Ordinance in specifying the
conditions to be imposed in an environmental permit.
The followings will also be based when drafting environmental
permits
Moreover,
all environmental permits issued are placed in the EIA
Ordinance Register Office and uploaded into the Website
for reference by applicants and public.
|
The
choice of prescriptive or performance based environmental
permit conditions is central to the effectiveness of
EPD in enforcing the EIA Ordinance as well as the public
in understanding of the environmental measures to be
adopted before the project construction commenced on
site. Whilst discussions at project level will benefit,
it is also considered that apart from the existing references
(ref: left) used in the drafting of environmental permits,
the setting up of the above mentioned liaison groups
will help to resolve the difference. These groups include:
The
EIA Ordinance user liaison groups
The
EIA Ordinance practitioners liaison group
|
6.
Effectiveness of the Statutory EIA Process in Pre-empting
Adverse Environmental Impacts
|
The
Technical Memorandum on EIA Process provides the legal
basis for EIA studies to assess environmental impacts.
It
is an existing administrative requirement that no decision
to proceed with the implementation of a designated project
should be given before an EIA report has been prepared
and approved, or a permission to apply directly for
an environmental permit has been granted.
The
government has also issued instruction to departments
not to gazette a designated project before EIA report
approval unless prior consent of Secretary for Planning,
Environment and Lands (now Secretary for the Environment
and Food) has been sought.
|
The
existing arrangements have effectively ensured that adverse
environmental impacts are pre-empted. This is best illustrated
by the examples of key outcomes in the fact sheet in Appendix
B. |
7.
Other Views Expressed
(a)
Coverage of the EIA Ordinance:
-
In
general, there had been no strong argument on whether
the coverage should be wider or lesser. During the
consultation with the 18 Provisional District Boards,
one member opined that all projects should be covered
in the Ordinance. However, except on a very specific
suggestion regarding 132kv overhead power lines,
there was no strong suggestion from proponent departments
and relevant authorities on whether the list in
Schedules 2 and 3 of the EIA Ordinance should be
generally tightened or relaxed.
|
a.
Coverage of the EIA Ordinance
|
a.
Coverage of the EIA Ordinance
The
Schedules will be kept under constant review. In July
1999, there was one major designated project added to
the Schedule 2 in light of the public interest in that
type of development.
The
setting up of the EIA Ordinance users and practitioners
liaison groups will help to facilitate effective dialogue
amongst stakeholders over the coverage of EIA Ordinance.
|
(b)
Technical Issues related to Environmental Assessment
-
Lack
of explicit standards for the assessing the impacts
on biological species was a concern, resulting in
discrepancy in ecological assessment. Some of the
stakeholders suggested that a database on biological
diversity and the relative importance of the various
species and habitats would be helpful for ecological
assessment.
|
b.
Technical Issues related to Environmental Assessment
|
b.
Technical Issues related to Environmental Assessment
|