Hong Kong: Regulatory Framework
|
Legislation Addressing the Environment |
- Air Pollution Control Ordinance of 1983
- Ozone Layer Ordinance of 1989
- Public Cleansing and Prevention of Nuisances (Regional Council)
By-Laws 1975
- Waste Disposal Ordinance of 1987
- Waste Disposal (Chemical Waste) Regulations 1992
- Water Pollution Control Ordinance
- Environment Impact Assessment Bill
- Noise Control Ordinance
|
Until the late 1980s, Hong Kong's severe environmental problems were left
unchecked by the government. The Environmental Protection Unit established
in 1977 merely maintained an advisory role and lacked the resources and
backing to establish and enforce environmental legislation. Hong Kong's
perfunctory stance on the environment was finally addressed in the 1989
publication of the environmental "White Paper" entitled "Pollution in Hong
Kong? A Time to Act." This landmark event admitted past mistakes and raised
a call for action by laying out a 10-year plan to address environmental
problems. The Environmental Protection Department (EPD), established in
1986, finally began to build up institutional strength in order to
administer environmental policies and regulations and to enforce the laws.
The White Paper serves as the foundation for current Government policies on
pollution for the territory.
Air quality is generally regulated in Hong Kong by restrictions placed on
stationary sources and new emissions levels imposed on mobile sources.
The Air Pollution Control Ordinance (APCO) controls pollution from
stationary sources, such as factories and facilities. It establishes ten air
control zones that are monitored by the government and also sets up a
licensing system. Facilities that operate a "specified process" must be
licensed by the Environmental Protection Department (EPD); facilities
established before 1983 may be exempted.
The APCO also regulates mobile sources by requiring petrol retailers to
take all reasonable steps to stock and sell unleaded petrol. Other stringent
emission design standards are imposed on post-1992 vehicles through
regulation.
The main statute relating to water pollution is the Water Pollution
Control Ordinance (WPCO). This statute prohibits the discharge of poisonous
or noxious matter into Hong Kong waters, establishes ten water control zones
with individual water-quality objectives, and licenses discharges of
pollutants in water control zones only. Those sources established before
1981 are exempt from licensing. However, EPD is empowered to require owners
of wastewater treatment facilities in a water control zone to repair or
modify operations. In addition, the Building Authority is empowered, under
the Building Ordinance, to specify or require the construction and
maintenance of waste treatment facilities, sewage works and related systems.
The Dumping at Sea Ordinance controls disposal of waste at sea and in
Hong Kong's harbors.
Solid waste disposal is regulated by the Environmental Protection
Department under the Waste Disposal Ordinance (WDO). This ordinance provides
for licensing of waste collection, disposal services (including waste
treatment and recycling), land use for waste disposal (excluding landfills
operated by the Civil Engineering Department), waste importation and control
of livestock waste.
Hazardous waste also is controlled under the WDO. Chemical waste
producers and transporters must register with EPD and provide adequate
storage. Waste must be conveyed by a licensed collector to a licensed site.
EPD "trip tickets" monitor waste movement. However, the definition of
chemical waste is not unequivocal; many textile processing effluents may be
said to fall outside the definition in the Ordinance.
A sweeping piece of legislation, the Environment Impact Assessment Bill,
was enacted in 1996. Under this bill, the Hong Kong Government intends to
make a statutory requirement for environmental impact assessments and
detailed public consultations for major development projects. The
Environmental Impact Assessment Bill proposes that Environmental Impact
Assessment ("EIA") will be necessary if a project falls within the extensive
Schedule of Designated Projects. An Applicant must prepare an EIA report
based on a study brief and technical memorandum supplied by the Hong Kong
Government. Designated projects may not be constructed or operated without
compliance with an Environmental Permit (and conditions).
Permits may also be required to comply with Hong Kong's Noise Control
Ordinance. This ordinance regulates industrial noise to levels according to
area, time of day and impact of other noise sources through a permit system,
also administered through the Environmental Protection Department.
Hong Kong is a signatory or a participant in most major conventions.
Many environmental regulations have been affected by Hong Kong's
participation in these international conventions. For example, the Ozone
Layer Protection Ordinance was passed as part of Hong Kong's strategy of
participation in the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer
of 1985 and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
of 1987. The ordinance prohibits manufacture of CFCs and three halons in
accordance with the terms of these conventions.
In accordance with the International Convention for the Protection of
Pollution from Ships, the Hong Kong legislature enacted the Merchant
Shipping (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Ordinance to provide for the
prevention and control of pollution from ships. Its regulations control,
among other things, dangerous and large amounts of oil and other toxic
substances carried by tankers. Under the Shipping and Port Control
Ordinance, it is illegal for a vessel to discharge oil or any mixture
containing oil in Hong Kong waters unless such discharge falls within a
defense listed in the Ordinance: (i) securing the safety of a vessel; (ii)
preventing damage to a vessel or its cargo; or (iii) saving a life. The
emission of smoke in such quantity as to be a nuisance by vessels in Hong
Kong waters is also considered an offense under the ordinance. The new
Dumping at Sea Ordinance controls disposal of waste at sea and in Hong
Kong's harbors.
Implementation of the Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of
Chemical Waste is also planned by the Hong Kong Government.
The Civil Aviation (Aircraft Noise) Ordinance and subsidiary regulations
ensure that subsonic jets are certified in accordance with the International
Convention on Civil Aviation.
The Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department is the major
organization responsible for enforcement and administration of environmental
laws. In 1997, Hong Kong was transferred to China and is now an entity
controlled by this nation. The effect of this transfer is still being felt
and its impact on laws and regulations within Hong Kong will continue to be
determined over the next several years.
Environmental Protection Department
24th-28th Floors
Southorn Centre
130 Hennessy Road
Wan Chai
Hong Kong
Tel.: (852) 2835 1018
Fax: (852) 2838 2155
World Energy Council of Hong Kong
c/o China Light & Power Co. Ltd.
Mr. Ross Sayers, Managing Director
147 Argyle Street
Kowloon, Hong Kong
Tel: 852 2678-8339
Fax: 852 2678-8355
Hong Kong has an environmental quality monitoring and regulatory
enforcement regime in place under the direction of the Environmental
Protection Department (EPD) and implemented by six local control offices
consisting of nearly 600 staff. A significant portion of enforcement
activity is driven by public complaints registered with the EPD and other
authorities. The EPD investigates complaints and dispatches inspectors to
the field. The local control offices conducted over 70,000 inspections in
1997, resulting in more than 1,000 prosecutions and generating nearly HK$20
million in fines. In 1997, the total number of complaints filed with EPD and
the police was nearly 14,000, representing a 9% decrease over 1996.
Environmental enforcement activities, as reported by the EPD, are typically
broken down by media (i.e., air, water, soil, noise), sub-media or pollutant
type (i.e., cooking fumes, dust, smoke) and, although to a lesser degree, by
industry (i.e., printing, metals finishing, laundry).
Of course, enforcement statistics (even those that include monetary
penalty data) can tell us only so much about a polluter�s motivation to buy
environmental solutions. The EPD�s regulatory enforcement efforts and data
reporting are largely "reactive" in the sense that enforcement activities
are driven by complaints from the public. To the extent that public
complaints are an indicator of those areas in which generators are investing
in environmental technology (beyond simply paying fines), then the EPD�s
enforcement data can be a useful proxy for demand for environmental
technologies. However, generators may be subject to regulatory sanction and
have significant environmental spending in areas of operations that do not
tend to generate public complaints. These can include internal operations
that are "hidden" from public view or detection such as in-plant
contamination or releases, resource recovery or pre-treatment of air or
water.
Enforcement Cases by Media
The EPD reports the following media and industry-based enforcement
statistics for 1996 and 1997. Figures include numbers of complaints filed
and/or conviction rates and value of fines. Simply knowing the media where
enforcement activities are taking place can begin to point the way to
business opportunity for providers of environmental goods and services.
Those media generating the greatest number of complaints and convictions are
likely to be those in which environmental remedies are first sought.
Environmental Complaints and Enforcement 1996-1997
In 1997, air-related complaints accounted for 44% of total complaints,
17% of convictions, but only 10% of the total value of fines. It is also
important to note that nearly half of air complaints were for vehicle
emissions. Of the remainder, 20% were focused on commercial (or retail)
sources, industrial sources accounted for 45%, "nuisance" sources (i.e.,
construction, open burning, slaughterhouses) accounted for 33% and utilities
accounted for less than 1%. The most prosecuted air-related offense was
emission of smoke, followed by defective engineering, illegal
installation/alteration and failure to use required equipment. It would
therefore appear from the perspective of prosecution statistics that the
opportunity for air-related environmental firms would lie in emissions
reduction through better engineering, process improvement and technical
compliance.
With respect to specific sources of air-related complaints, restaurants
led the commercial (non-manufacturing) segment with 602 complaints,
representing nearly 10% of total air-related complaints. Among industrial
sources, food manufacturing and garages were the leaders. Food accounted for
170 complaints (3% of total air complaints) and garages accounted for 159
complaints (2.5% of total air complaints). The fact that "other" industries
accounted for as much as 787 complaints (13% of total air complaints)
probably indicates that a significant number of air complaints were directed
at small, less well-defined industrial operations outside the major industry
categories. This may present a challenge for environmental technology
providers who may find it difficult to locate firm-level customers in this
significant but poorly defined pool of potential buyers.
Another category of air pollution sources tracked by EPD consists of
"nuisance" sources. The leaders in this category were construction with 577
complaints (9% of total air complaints), followed by slaughterhouses with
239 (4% of total air complaints) and open burning with 223 (4% of total air
complaints). As noted in the case of noise pollution, these types of sources
(with the exception of slaughterhouses) can be difficult to mitigate due to
the transitory nature of their operations. As a result, sales of
environmental remedies can be difficult to realize.
Analysis of water and liquid waste-related enforcement data presents a
particular challenge because EPD statistics do not consistently distinguish
between these two media types. The data presented above and discussed here
involve estimates of the value of fines per media category based on the
breakdown of water and liquid waste-related complaints. We assume that
conviction and fine figures parallel those of complaints.
The data show that for 1997, liquid waste accounted for 8% of complaints,
24% of total convictions and 29% of the total value of fines. Water
pollution accounted for only 1% of complaints, 2% of convictions and 2% of
the value of fines. With 29% of the value of fines, liquid waste may be a
promising area for environmental companies. The bulk of complaints are
focused on industrial sources. This may simplify the sales and marketing
effort because potential customers will tend to concentrate in identifiable
segments. They also may already be buyers of related or unrelated
environmental solutions.
As we look at specific sources of liquid waste complaints, we find that
the bulk was directed at industrial sources, led by food manufacturers with
222 complaints (20% of total liquid waste complaints). The next closest
segment was repair services with a total of 91 complaints. The "other"
category of industrial sources accounted for 440 complaints (40% of total
liquid waste complaints) but, like the air pollution case mentioned above,
the fact that the "other" category is poorly defined might mean that sales
of environmental solutions are difficult to achieve.
Water pollution statistics show that of the nearly 300 convictions in
1997, industrial (manufacturing) and commercial violators each represented
nearly 50% of total convictions. Industrial fines were highest on average
and absolutely, and industrial polluters had the highest rate of repeat
convictions.
Solid waste accounted for 5% of complaints, 20% of convictions and 9% of
the total value of fines. The most noteworthy aspect of the solid waste data
is the marked increase in the number of complaints between 1996 and 1997.
While all other media saw declines or no change (air), solid waste
complaints rose 41%. To the extent that this emerges as a trend resulting
from either increased violations and/or better enforcement, then we might
expect to see convictions and fines also rise as well.
The largest target of solid waste complaints is livestock, led by pigs.
Livestock accumulated 340 complaints, accounting for 45% of total solid
waste complaints. To the extent that livestock facilities are large enough
to have sufficient funds to invest in solid waste solutions, they may
constitute a significant market opportunity.
The second largest target of solid waste related complaints was the
litter and refuse segment. Public areas attracted 295 complaints, accounting
for 36% of total solid waste complaints. Unfortunately, measures to reduce
public littering typically have more to do with public education and the
placement of waste receptacles than with sophisticated environmental
technologies. Also, it is unlikely that individual, casual litterers would
buy waste receptacles.
Industrial solid wastes attracted 117 complaints, representing 15% of
total solid waste complaints. Included in that figure are chemical waste
complaints. Although these represent only 8% of total solid waste
complaints, fines for chemical waste violations represented as much as 32%
of total solid waste related fines. The relatively high cost of chemical
violations implies that chemical violators may be receptive to environmental
solutions. The EPD tracks registered chemical waste producers by industry
and, excluding the 25% of total producers in the unfortunately fuzzy "other"
category, the leading segments are petrol filling stations and vehicle
maintenance facilities (18% of registrations), printing and publishing (13%
of registrations), and film processing and photographic workshops (11% of
registrations). These relatively well-identified chemical waste producers
are likely targets for environmental companies.
Perhaps the most outstanding feature of the enforcement data above is the
significant role that noise plays in the overall numbers. It is perhaps not
surprising that noise should represent a significant pollutant in an
intensely urban environment like that of Hong Kong. Also, noise is easily
detected by members of the public who don�t need sophisticated instruments
or analysis to know when their ears are being offended. In 1997, noise
complaints represented 42% of all complaints and 39% of convictions.
Fines for noise violations represented 50% of total fines for that year.
Air, by comparison, represented 44% of complaints but only 10% of the total
value of fines. Among the targets of noise complaints, construction,
neighborhoods and public places accounted for approximately 50% of
complaints. While it is unlikely that sophisticated noise control technology
would be applied to the average domestic argument, noisy teenager or
do-it-yourself craftsman, noise complaints focused on construction firms can
represent a fertile market. Despite the transitory nature of construction
projects, repeated penalties will drive construction firms to seek
solutions.
The remaining 50% of noise complaints that relate to fixed facilities
like industrial plants and transportation facilities are even more likely to
benefit from noise control technologies and also are well worth the
attention of environmental solution providers. Unfortunately, industrial
noise complaints are not further broken down by industry. |
