雙語社評齊齊聽

[英語 (足本收聽)] Presented by Dr CHAN, Weng-kit Danny, Lecturer of Hong Kong Community College, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

[普通話 (足本收聽)] Presented by Dr MAO, Sheng Michelle, Lecturer of Hong Kong Community College, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

The Advisory Council on the Environment (ACE) is to meet today (19 August) to continue the discussion about the environmental impact of the housing development plan at Fanling Golf Course and is expected to come to a decision. The plan has ruffled vested interests and ecological conservation has been cited as the reason for opposing the plan. An ACE member revealed that lobbying efforts by the Golf Club have been much greater than those related to other projects reviewed by the ACE in recent years, giving people the impression that it wants to obstruct the housing plan by way of the ACE. As an advisory organisation for the government, the ACE only has to decide whether the government's Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report meets the requirements of the technical memorandum. Other information is only for reference. Even if some shortcomings are found in the EIA report by ACE members, the report can still be given a "conditional pass". People expect the ACE to handle the EIA on the housing plan at Fanling Golf Course in a just, impartial and professional manner, rather than endorse vested interests.

[ENG audio 1]

When the EIA report on the housing development plan at Fanling Golf Course was reviewed by the ACE in early August, no conclusion could be reached after more than six hours of discussion. It was reported that an ACE member proposed putting the EIA report to the vote at today's meeting.

[ENG audio 2]

The ACE is not a decision making body. Strictly speaking, it only gives advisory opinions to the government regarding environmental and ecological issues. In the past, the ACE seldom had to vote when reviewing an EIA report. On the one hand, that is because the meetings have a focus on discussing the technical dimension and do not involve factors beyond the environmental profession, making it easier to reach a consensus. On the other hand, that also reflects the fact that the ACE, as an advisory body, has no need to have a showdown between different camps to decide "who wins or loses" like a decision making body. There is an extraordinary aura of rivalry surrounding the meeting today. Some people want to use the ACE to attack the housing development plan at Fanling Golf Course and attempt to force the government into aborting the project.

[ENG audio 3]

Developing the land of the golf course is a consensus reached after a year-long discussion. Never has any opinion poll shown that the opposers are the majority. Having taken conservation, transportation, sports development and so forth into consideration, the Task Force on Land Supply proposed reclaiming 32 hectares of golf course land for development first. After some research, the government decided to use only eight hectares of the land with limited ecological value for building 12,000 public housing units, hoping to find the balance between ecological conservation and the grassroots' urgent housing needs. However, a handful of vested interests regard the golf course as their exclusive domain and have refused to give an inch.

[ENG audio 4]

Before the EIA meeting last month, the Golf Club invited some of the ACE members to visit the golf course. Its representatives briefed them with an ecological study done by a consultancy commissioned by the Golf Club, criticising the government's EIA report as "underestimating the ecological impact of the development plan". However, the Golf Club's consultancy report only focused on ecology surveys, while the government's EIA report also covered other areas of research apart from ecology. The crux of the matter should be the assessment of the overall impact of the project on the environment and ecology.

[ENG audio 5]

ACE members' meeting with the Golf Club's representatives and acceptance of their lobbying has given the public a negative impression. The citizens hope that all ACE members can show their professional attitude and deal with the EIA report in a fair and impartial manner at today's meeting. Even if they really think that the report is insufficient, as long as there are not any "irreparable" shortcomings, they can still give it a "conditional pass" and allow the government to follow up with some ecological studies.

[ENG audio 6]

高球場環評今定斷 環諮會審議要合理

環諮會今天開會，續議粉嶺高球場建屋環評，如何處理料有定論。高球場建屋，觸動既得利益，生態保育成為反對計劃的理由。有環諮會委員透露，高球會游說力度遠超近年環諮會處理的其他項目，大有借環諮會阻撓建屋計劃之意。環諮會作為政府諮詢機構，只需考慮政府環評報告是否符合技術備忘錄要求，其他資料僅屬參考，即使委員認為環評有不足之處，亦可「有條件通過」，期望環諮會本着公正持平專業態度，處理高球場建屋環評，而不是為既得利益背書。

[PTH audio 1]

環諮會8月初討論高球場建屋環評報告，討論逾6小時未有結論。根據傳媒報道，有委員提出，今天會議以投票方式，表決是否接納高球場建屋環評報告。

[PTH audio 2]

環諮會不是決策機構，嚴格來說只是就環保生態問題，向政府提供顧問意見。以往環諮會審視環評報告，鮮有需要投票表態，一方面因為會議聚焦技術層面討論，不涉環保專業之外的因素，較易形成共識，另一方面也正正反映了環諮會作為諮詢機構，沒必要像決策機構那樣，讓不同陣營以表決定「勝負」。這次會議有一股不尋常的角力氣息，有人欲借環諮會打擊高球場建屋計劃，試圖逼政府放棄項目。

[PTH audio 3]

發展高球場用地是經過長達一年討論得出的共識，從來沒有民調顯示反對者佔多數。土地供應小組考慮了保育、交通、體育發展等因素，建議先收回32公頃高球場用地發展。政府研究後，決定只用當中生態價值不高的8公頃土地，興建1.2萬伙公屋，希望平衡生態保育與基層上樓迫切需要，然而小撮既得利益者視粉嶺高球場為禁臠，寸步不讓。

[PTH audio 4]

高球會在環評小組上月開會前，曾邀請部分委員參觀球場，並向他們簡報由球會另行委聘顧問所做的生態調查，質疑政府環評「低估發展項目對生態影響」。高球會顧問報告只集中做生態調查，但政府環評報告需涉及生態以外其他研究，評估項目整體環境生態影響，才是關鍵所在。

[PTH audio 5]

環諮會委員與球會代表會晤接受游說，公眾觀感始終不好。今天環諮會會議，市民期望各委員能本着專業態度，公正持平處理環評報告，即使真的認為報告有不足，只要不存在「不可彌補」缺失，仍可「有條件通過」，讓政府補做一些生態調查。

[PTH audio 6]

明報社評2022.8.19