Last week, the High Court ruled that the environmental impact assessment of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau bridge project did not comply with the law. Hence, the decision of the director of environmental protection to approve bridge works was quashed. This was the result of a judicial review application by a 66-year-old woman living in Tung Chung. Her health, like that of many others, has been affected by air pollution.
Between 2004 and 2008, the average maximum daily reading of respiratory suspended particulates in Tung Chung was 13 per cent above the level set by our outdated air quality objectives. Oddly, the environmental impact study claimed that, despite the expected addition of tens of thousands of vehicles that will use the bridge, the air nearby residents breathe will become cleaner because the background air quality will have improved.
Internationally, there are two approaches to pollution control. The first is a 'waste bin' approach: it assumes that the environment is a big bucket into which pollutants may be introduced, so long as there is still space within the bucket to accommodate them. The second is a 'do your best' approach: even though there is still space in the bucket, every project proponent must adopt all practical means to avoid, reduce or mitigate all pollutants.
It seems common sense that both approaches are essential if the government is to deliver a cleaner environment over time. Indeed, this is the standard practice in many developed countries, as exemplified by two European Council directives in 1996 and the pollution control regulations for England and Wales introduced in 2000.
Yet, our government claims that it is bound only by the 'waste bin' approach. Hence, in the case of the bridge project, no serious pollution control measure is needed since, according to its generous estimates, the overall pollution ceiling will 'not be exceeded'.
Having examined the evidence, the judge Joseph Fok said the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance is 'to be understood as incorporating the two approaches... and is not to be construed as if the only relevant yardstick is whether particular benchmarks are exceeded'. He continued: 'If environmental protection is to be meaningful, it seems to me that it must aim to minimise the environmental impact of any project.' In other words, the law does not give officials a licence to pollute, contrary to what the government has claimed since the ordinance came into effect in 1998.
Taking the 'do your best' approach, an analysis of future environmental conditions without the project - something omitted in the study for the delta bridge - must be conducted. Otherwise the pollution footprint of the project cannot be measured and nobody can tell whether all practical measures have been employed to deal with the adverse impact.
