Latest Articles by Christine Loh

Hong Kong: how to breathe easier

Christine Loh — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:49:00 +0000

Hong Kong’s worsening air pollution causes four deaths a day on average. Improvements are needed, but how? Christine Loh says revised air quality standards, improved energy efficiency and greener ports are key.

Hong Kong’s worsening air quality has become an increasingly hot topic in the global press. Photographs of thick, grey smog have appeared on the front of news magazines, and Hong Kong’s desirability as a home for international executives has been thrown into question – news which came as a nasty shock to the city authorities. Recent polls show that air quality is a top concern among city residents; and last year Merill Lynch, the investment bank, warned that air quality in Hong Kong is now so poor that the city's long-term competitiveness is under threat. Skilled professionals were already departing Hong Kong because of the heavy pollution, the bank said, and more will surely follow.

So, just how bad is Hong Kong’s air?

Street-level air quality regularly falls short of the government’s Air Quality Objectives (AQOs), and even further short of the World Health Organisation (WHO) Air Quality Guidelines. For example, on 19 and 20 November 2006, roadside levels of respirable suspended particulates (RSPs – equivalent to PM10) exceeded the WHO guidelines by at least 300%. Since millions of people in Hong Kong live and work in close proximity to busy roads, this presents a major health risk to city residents. Studies by local public health experts have found that these roadside pollution levels are responsible for 90,000 hospital admissions and 2,800 premature deaths every year.

Declining regional air quality means visibility has also decreased dramatically. In 2004, low visibility occurred 18% of the time – the highest on record, according to the Hong Kong observatory.

The most problematic air pollutants in the region, besides RSPs, are ozone and nitrogen dioxide. But what are the sources of this pollution?

Most of Hong Kong’s power is generated by burning coal. In fact, electricity generation produces half of Hong Kong’s total emissions of nitrogen oxide and particulates, and 92% of its total sulphur dioxide emissions. Most local power stations do not yet have flue gas desulphurisation, although equipment is being installed and the government has required that all new generation capacity should come from natural gas.

Hong Kong’s roads are also the most crowded in the world, with almost 280 vehicles for every kilometre of road. The city’s vehicle fleet is dominated by heavily polluting, ageing goods vehicles, most of which run between the city and the Pearl River Delta. Diesel commercial vehicles are responsible 90% of RSPs and 80% of nitrogen dioxide emissions from the entire road transport sector, despite making up only 23% of the vehicle fleet. Double-decker diesel buses and a steadily growing fleet of private cars have also added to congestion and pollution.

Recent studies have shown that although emissions from marine vessels make up a relatively small proportion of total emissions, they affect dense population centres on the Kowloon peninsula, where container terminals are located, and so have a significant public health impact. Bunker fuel is highly polluting, and these terminals function 24 hours a day.

But Hong Kong’s air quality not only suffers from severe local air pollution generated by the city itself, but also regional smog – pollution that arises from the industry of the Pearl River Delta area.

The city’s air has been greatly affected by the rapid industrialisation and urbanisation of south China’s Pearl River Delta region. The delta area is about the size of the San Francisco Bay Area, and while it is not a geographically large area, it is where Hong Kong’s light industrial manufacturing relocated to in the 1980s, as Hong Kong capital fed China’s mighty export production capabilities. Even though China now has other export production hubs, Guangdong Province still generates about 30% of China’s total annual export earnings.

Electricity generation, energy-intensive industry and a rapidly growing fleet of vehicles are all major sources of emissions in the Pearl River Delta region. The power-generating capacity of Guangdong province is still made up in large part by highly polluting and inefficient small capacity units, although some of these are being phased out. Shortages in the power supply to industry also mean that many factories often run their own generators, which burn low quality fuels. While the authorities have issued warnings and fines, as well as pushing more polluting businesses to upgrade or relocate, the air quality in the Pearl River Delta is still very poor.

A regional emissions inventory conducted around 10 years ago showed that about 80% of air pollutants have their source across the border in the Pearl River Delta region, while 20% are emitted by Hong Kong. This has led many people in Hong Kong to feel that its pollution is outside their jurisdiction, and that local efforts would not be enough to turn things round – an impression that has had a debilitating effect on pollution control efforts.

But the most recent research (to be published in March 2007 by Civic Exchange) shows that by examining data from regional and local monitoring stations and combining it with meteorological information, an interesting picture emerges. Controlling emissions from marine and transportation sources in Hong Kong more stringently could in fact have a substantial impact on the city’s public health. Hopefully this new research will push the Hong Kong government to take much more aggressive action in local pollution control. But what should this involve?

One crucial step would be to replace Hong Kong’s outdated AQOs. These air quality standards were set in 1987, and have not since been revised. There is now growing pressure for Hong Kong to adopt the WHO global standards, which better reflect current knowledge of pollution’s effects on health. But the government has shown reluctance to adopt the WHO standards for fear that Hong Kong’s air quality will be shown to fall short of the guidelines, since the city’s pollution levels already exceed the weaker AQOs. Experts have criticised the government for misapplying air quality standards by regarding them as nothing more than administrative guidelines, when they are in fact set to protect public health.

Pollution is a major cause of illness in Hong Kong. Every year, pollution is the cause of around 1,600 deaths (four per day), 64,200 hospital admissions (176 per day) and 6,811,960 doctor visits (18,600 per day). These serious health effects result in annual community losses of over HK$2 billion (around US$255 million) in direct health care costs and productivity losses, and HK$19 billion (around US$2.5 billion) in further costs arising from pain, suffering and personal loss.

Apart from tightening the AQOs, other measures Hong Kong needs to take include:

- Improving energy efficiency: Hong Kong’s energy-efficiency policy lags behind most developed countries. It should make energy-efficiency standards mandatory for buildings and appliances. Research shows that 30% of Hong Kong’s total electricity could be saved if all commercial buildings adopted the standards set out in the Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method (HKBEAM) – a local building standard which is now voluntary.

- Getting highly-polluting pre-Euro and Euro I commercial vehicles off the road: the government is providing a grant to owners in order to encourage them to replace these cars with Euro IV vehicles. But this should be combined with road usage measures, such as banning certain types of vehicles from urban areas during the daytime.

- Implementing a “green ports” policy: Hong Kong should aggressively reduce emissions arising from port operations, as well as the transportation logistics sector involved in export manufacturing.

- Working with Guangdong province: Hong Kong must address regional air quality issues and build capacity for a regional air monitoring framework for the future.

Christine Loh is the CEO of Civic Exchange

Homepage photo by Tony Oxborrow

Hong Kong’s idling engine

Christine Loh — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:47:00 +0000

Ten years after the handover, there is great wealth in Hong Kong, but how has nature fared? Christine Loh reviews a decade of environmental policy in the city of stifling smog.

Hong Kong’s environmental policy over the past decade has seen some advancement, but there has also been limited progress on some issues – and even stagnation in many areas. So why have policies succeeded or failed?

Successes included the completion of stage one of the Harbour Area Treatment Scheme (HATS). This has improved marine water quality and reduced polluting emissions from diesel vehicles; the relocation of the airport from Kai Tak to Chek Lap Kok has significantly reduced the number of people affected by noise pollution; and there has also been a large increase in the quantities of solid waste recycled. New Sites of Special Scientific Interest, which include a new country park and a new marine park, have all been designated.

In addition, progress has been made on a number of policy fronts: the implementation and refinement of the EIA Ordinance, the imposition of a construction and demolition waste-charging scheme. There were also successes in cross-border cooperation on a number of issues, particularly air pollution. Water conservation and recycling are being promoted.

Generally though, it has been a decade of broken promises, lost opportunities, missed targets and stalled programmes. These include:

* The large proportion of the population (in a city of such wealth) who remain without sewers, or receive only primary water treatment;

* The lack of a comprehensive conservation policy and effective mechanisms for biodiversity protection;

* The lack of a sustainable energy policy, targets for greenhouse-gas emissions and climate-change related issues;

* Failure to fully implement the “polluter pays principle”, meaning transportation, energy, water, waste and sewage services are all under-priced.

The result is that, on a per capita basis, Hong Kong residents use more resources and create more pollution in 2007 than they did in 1997. Hong Kong still suffers from dangerously high levels of air pollution; there is poor water quality in several areas, particularly Deep Bay and in a number of rivers; there are high levels of exposure to severe traffic noise; and rapidly diminishing landfill space. Areas rich in biodiversity are being squandered for housing, roads, and other infrastructure.

There are a number of reasons for this predicament:

Leadership: From Hong Kong’s chief executive down, decision-makers are (and long have been) reliant on large physical infrastructure as a primary tool to promote economic growth. A lack of leadership on environmental protection from the two chief executives has had knock-on effects on the civil service. The policy bureau responsible for environmental protection had been restructured twice since the handover, disrupting momentum for policy development, while energy supply is handled by a separate bureau. In a third round of restructuring from 1 July 2007, environmental and energy responsibilities have finally been put in one bureau, which will hopefully lead to better coordination of policies in the future. In some areas, such as climate change and the “polluter pays principle”, there is uncertainty over who is in charge or what the policy is. The environment has not been a sufficiently high priority issue for the Legislative Council (LegCo), which has not offered much resistance to the administration’s often poorly justified proposals for infrastructure.

Sustainable development: Government decision-makers use the rhetoric of sustainable development freely, but have yet to truly put it into practice. They have failed to identify sustainable development as a policy objective or to align government organisational structures and practices to meet this goal. As a whole, the decisions and behaviour of ministers and officials do not reflect the attempt to find sustainable solutions. Indeed, most senior political leaders have yet to internalise sustainable development, and how it can be both a development strategy and an operational guide in policy implementation. They continue to promote economic development in terms of bricks-and-mortar investments. Those in high office seem not to know the two are intertwined. After all, the natural environment is the overarching sphere within which all human activities take place. It is not a matter of “balancing” growth and environment: the two should go together. Indeed, environmental clean-up is a way to spur quality development and create jobs.

Planning: In 2007, the planning process, particularly strategic and transport planning, continues to display a lack of integration on environmental issues. This partly stems from the government’s development-led ethos, which conflicts with stated sustainable development objectives in the planning system. Hong Kong’s inherited legacy of pollution problems stems largely from poor planning. Strategic planning still takes a top-down approach that does not effectively involve the community in decision-making. Public engagement processes seldom provide for the fundamental questioning of government plans. There is a tendency for large infrastructure projects to bypass the strategic planning process and be pushed through without robust analysis.

Public consultation and participation: Despite a more systematic approach to public consultation on issues since the 1997 handover, general public participation is still lacking in environmental policy-making. There is still a tendency for the government to rely on its statutory and advisory bodies rather than genuine community participation; often the fundamental decisions on issues have been made beforehand. This not only results in sub-optimal decision-making, but it also reduces the buy-in on issues from the public, reduces opportunities for educating the public on environmental issues and can backfire in terms of the additional time and resources it takes to implement key policies.

Cross-border cooperation: Hong Kong’s environment, particularly air and water pollution, is heavily influenced by regional emissions. At the same time, Hong Kong’s economy is growing ever more integrated with the rest of the region, so there is both the need and the opportunity to exert influence. Despite some useful studies and initiatives, the level of cross-border cooperation has been more limited and passive than had been hoped for at the time of the handover. Release of data from the mainland remains a problem (although there has been better air pollution data from Guangdong since 2006). Without good data on the source of the problem, it is difficult to direct policy or resources to its solution. Most of the cooperation is also done at an administrative level, despite the interest of business and NGOs in supporting government efforts. The engagement of the business community, in particular, is vital to expedite any efforts to reduce pollution across the border.

As dire as the situation is, there are glimmers of hope: further vehicle emissions reductions are planned; stage two of HATS may yet drive further improvements in marine water quality; and a new strategy for reducing waste, including energy recovery technology, is rolling out. At the same time, however, none of the fundamental factors discussed above are altering significantly. Indeed, the current chief executive is promising to accelerate infrastructure development, which can only increase the demand for resources, the threat to biodiversity, and the levels of pollution.

Christine Loh is the CEO of Civic Exchange

The above article is a summary of Idling Engine: Hong Kong's Environmental Policy in a Ten Year Stall 1997-2007, one of four books Civic Exchange has published examining Hong Kong’s policies over the ten years. The other titles are: Still Holding our Breath: A Review of Air Quality Policy in Hong Kong 1997-2007; Reflections of Leadership: Tung Chee Hwa and Donald Tsang 1997-2007; and From Nowhere to Nowhere: A Review of Constitutional Development Hong Kong 1997-2007. For more information, visit www.civic-exchange.org

Homepage photo by Epmd

Bali’s hopes and Asia’s future

Andrew Stevenson, Christine Loh — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:35:00 +0000

The road to a new global climate agreement must include Asian developing countries, but what form can it take? Andrew Stevenson & Christine Loh survey the options for a post-Kyoto world.

In the months leading up to the just-completed United Nations-led climate talks in Indonesia, a great deal of pressure built up for the meeting to produce a definitive roadmap by 2009 for an international climate-change framework after the current phase of the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012. Numerous high-level global events and conferences, a flood of media coverage and a deluge of analysis from NGOs, business and government bodies were topped off with the awarding of the Nobel Prize to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. With this increased publicity generating sky-high expectations among many, a “post-Bali” let-down was almost inevitable, with negotiators, scientists, journalists and the public disappointed with its less-than-perfect results.

On the ground at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties, delegates worked feverishly into the night. As negotiations took an acrimonious turn on the last day, UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon made a return visit to ensure the conference was not a “failure”. There was strong disagreement between the EU and US over plans for emissions reduction targets. The real problem, however, was that mandatory targets were never actually on the table at Bali – too many countries were simply unready for them. In the end, delegates agreed to consider making “measurable, reportable and verifiable nationally appropriate mitigation actions” a part of their post-2012 mitigation strategy.

However, the four building blocks of a post-2012 framework—adaptation, mitigation, technology, and financing—did make progress in Bali. There was increased attention on adaptation and forestry in particular, which resulted in some useful measures. The discussion moved forward on technology transfer and financing mechanisms, though not as far as many had hoped. Delegates also made progress on mitigation measures, with global sectoral emissions targets for certain industries now on the table for further discussion.

The future of Asia

These outcomes are important for Asia. Deforestation and adaptation are two of its most important issues, but up to this point in the Kyoto process they had taken a backseat to mitigation. Moreover, China and India, which the developed world have repeatedly called on to make a meaningful commitment in the second period of the Kyoto Protocol, showed that they are taking the issue more seriously. China and India presented their national climate-change strategies. Both countries have also created high-level cross-ministerial national bodies to address global warming and are beginning to implement policy measures by setting targets on renewables and energy intensity.

However, China and India are unready to make commitments to match developed countries. Throughout the conference they emphasised the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”—that those with greater historical responsibility and greater capacity should do more to address climate change—as well as the need for a flexible future framework that includes deep emissions cuts and technology transfer from major emitters. Many voices in the west are still calling for a treaty with strong enforcement mechanisms and mandatory commitments—although not necessarily economy-wide targets—for all major emitters. The precise wording of the Bali decision leaves the debate open on this point, and will no doubt be a point of contention over the next two years.

Developing countries in Asia still resist binding targets because they fear their economic growth will suffer. Most Asian countries are only just beginning to understand the risks of climate change and are in the early stages of creating national strategies. The difficulty of forecasting economic growth patterns in the region also makes setting accurate long-term emissions reduction targets very challenging. But despite this, huge projected increases in Asian emissions, the extreme vulnerability of countries in the region and recent scientific reports showing the increased potential for catastrophic impacts mean it is necessary to produce meaningful results for a second commitment period.

Climate mechanisms

Climate change may not be a high priority issue for many Asian countries, but sustainable development policies already have a broad appeal. Reforming the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), under which developed countries with greenhouse-gas reduction commitments invest in projects to reduce emissions in developing countries, could be a step in the right direction. A Sustainable Development Policies and Measures (SD-PAMs) approach would see developing countries pledging specific policy commitments that reduce greenhouse-gas emissions while benefiting economic growth. These voluntary commitments could then generate Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs), which can be traded. The wording of the Bali roadmap supports this approach, calling for mitigation measures from developing countries to be “in the context of sustainable development”. Furthermore, CERs from less desirable, much-criticised projects, such as those involving hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), could be “discounted” from the mechanism. In these ways, the CDM could be re-engineered to reduce global greenhouse-gas emissions, rather than shift them from the industrialised countries to the developing world.

Many Asian countries plan to address energy security concerns by relying on extensive domestic resources of coal. However, domestic policies in China and India demonstrate there is increasing political support for renewable energy in Asia. The Bali roadmap calls on developed countries to assist developing countries in mitigation efforts of this nature with technology transfer and financing. Working out the specifics of this support will be one of the main issues to discuss over the next two years. Stepping up current co-operation initiatives, dramatically increasing research-and-development funding for projects such as carbon capture and storage, and lowering trade barriers for environmental technologies are all vital options for decoupling development from emissions growth and improving energy security. It will also be useful to set-up an international “clearing house” of technologies to fight climate change. This will help decision-makers understand and choose the appropriate technologies for national mitigation plans – a complex area often requiring expert assistance.

“Menu” of options

Many countries around the world, including those in Asia, are not ready to take on binding targets. However, many of these nations are acknowledging the risk of climate change and realising they should accept some form of targets. The Bali roadmap reflects this reality. The important task is now to ensure there is a range of meaningful options for developing countries to adopt. It is critical that developing countries also prepare for increasing future responsibility by building domestic capacity and institutions for effective national planning, implementation, monitoring and enforcement of climate-change policy.

The post-2012 framework can promote this acceptance of obligations and domestic capacity building with two main strategies: firstly, by aligning sustainable development goals with greenhouse-gas reduction through a reformed CDM that has a “menu” of options, including adaptation policy, forest-management policy and “discounted” CERs; secondly, by addressing energy-security concerns with dramatically increased technology transfer and co-operation. Developed countries should match this increase in responsibility by reducing their emissions more aggressively, building co-ordinated and multi-dimensional governance frameworks, increasing collaboration on research, encouraging investment in alternative energy, continuing to refine and expand carbon markets and following through with the technology transfer and financing for developed countries urged in the Bali roadmap.

In 2008, building on Bali’s progress will be important so that greater things can be achieved at the next year’s COP15 meeting in Copenhagen. At that time, industrialised countries must work with developing nations to build their national capacities to address climate change. Once this capacity has been built to an adequate level, and if obligations are constructed in the context of sustainable development and energy security, developing countries may be ready to accept their part of a global climate-change commitment.

Christine Loh is the CEO of Civic Exchange

Andrew Stevenson is a US Fulbright Scholar studying in Hong Kong

Greening Hong Kong’s harbours

Lynne Curry, Veronica Galbraith, Christine Loh — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:20:00 +0000

Port-related emissions in Hong Kong and Shenzhen present a long-term threat to public health and regional economic development. Veronica Galbraith, Lynne Curry and Christine Loh explore how to clean up the industry.

Continuing pollution from port-related activities in Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta (PRD) represents a long-term threat to public health and future economic development, Hong Kong-based think-tank Civic Exchange says in a new report, Green Harbours: Hong Kong and Shenzhen – Reducing Marine and Port-Related Emissions. It is vital for the ports and associated logistics industries to address the problem sooner rather than later. The industry is ready for the government to regulate it and act as a convenor to encourage discussions across sectors and borders. The government must now ensure a level playing field, so the industry can effectively implement green initiatives without its members losing their competitive advantage.

In compiling the report, Civic Exchange sought the views of stakeholders from Hong Kong and the PRD. It was the first time that members of the shipping, port, local craft and trucking sectors spoke to each other about environmental concerns across the industry.

Hong Kong and the PRD have some of the busiest ports in the world and throughput is only expected to grow. Millions of people in the region live and work in close proximity to port facilities and are directly exposed to harmful levels of shipping and port-related emissions. Toxic emissions from ships and port-operations represent a danger to public health and a long-term threat to the economy.

Governments and the various players in the maritime sectors of Hong Kong and the PRD have already implemented some positive measures, which include encouraging the use of low-sulphur fuels by ships, barges, port vehicles and equipment; using electricity to power port machinery; reducing fuel consumption; and using quay-side electrification. The more progressive companies are looking at how to reduce their carbon footprint.

Although these measures in themselves are not sufficient to reduce emissions on a scale necessary to protect public health, they do form a solid foundation on which to do more. There is a willingness among stakeholders to do better, but they need government regulation to create a level playing field so that laggards do not benefit from non-action. Thus, marine and port-related emissions, in fact, represent a quick win for the authorities.

One of the most important tools to reduce marine emissions globally and regionally is Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Convention), enforced by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Annex VI stipulates that the sulphur content of fuel used in ships cannot exceed 4.5% and sets limits on nitrogen oxide (NO_x) emissions. Both Beijing and Hong Kong have ratified Annex VI, and are now bound by any future modification to Annex VI.

Recent discussions within the IMO have resulted in proposals for the revision of Annex VI, to be adopted in October 2008, as part of the ongoing process of setting global fuel and engine standards. Central to these talks is reducing the sulphur content of fuel in ships in global waters, and in Emission Control Areas (ECAs – areas close to ports and population centres). However, the current criteria for ECA designation is quite strict, and perhaps an unrealistic option for the PRD. However, negotiators at the IMO are considering ways to gradually increase the demand for cleaner fuels to ease the change for refineries, either by relaxing the criteria for ECA designation, and encouraging more of them to be created, or by suggesting emission limits that countries could implement in their territorial waters (this would be independent of the IMO, but would nevertheless encourage global consistency). These options could work well for the PRD region, and other Chinese port areas.

The health impact of marine and port-related air pollution is not a problem unique to Hong Kong and southern China. In North America and Europe, ports, governments and maritime industries are developing solutions to protect public health by way of regulations, incentive programmes, award and recognition schemes, comprehensive plans and policies, research and cross-interest collaborations. Vocal local communities and environmental groups have also played a role in bringing this issue to the attention of ports and local authorities.

While its efforts do not go far enough, the Hong Kong Government has promoted various initiatives to reduce sulphur emissions. Port operators in Hong Kong and Shenzhen have taken steps to clean up their operations. Some shipping companies, fearing the adoption of a worldwide patchwork of national and coastal emissions standards, have begun to use cleaner fuels and emission-reducing technologies on their engines when approaching ports. So far, however, this practice is not widespread in Hong Kong or the PRD.

Shipping companies, as well as port, local craft and truck operators, are willing to use cleaner fuels and follow best emission abatement practices, as long as regulations are implemented that will apply to all competitors across the board to ensure a level playing field. Bringing together competitors from across the industry is a critical part of reducing emissions. The Hong Kong Government and the Shenzhen authorities are best-placed to convene the dialogue that needs to take place to make this happen. Ratification of Annex VI was an important step for Hong Kong, but it is only the first move of what should become a comprehensive plan to reduce marine air pollution from harbour and river craft, ports, and trucks.

There are many initiatives that can be taken in the short term to improve air quality, such as reducing ship speed in PRD and Hong Kong waters, using cleaner fuels, or training staff to use existing machinery more efficiently to reduce fuel consumption and thus reduce emissions. In the medium-term, there is an urgent need to create an inventory of marine emissions in the PRD, improve Hong Kong’s inventory and to make these available for research and policy formulation. Without this information, it is difficult to create effective policy that targets emissions from marine sources. By looking at the experience and best practices of other port regions as well as taking advantage of the willingness in the industry regionally to clean up their operations, authorities in Hong Kong and Shenzhen can take an important step in protecting public health by reducing toxic emissions from this polluting industry.

Veronica Galbraith is a researcher at Civic Exchange

Lynne Curry is an independent environmental consultant
Christine Loh is the CEO of Civic Exchange

Homepage photo by OZinOH