Joint Statement on Sustainable Development for Lantau

3 March 2005

Since the government announced the Lantau Concept Plan last November, as representatives of various civil society groups we have entered into dialogue with government officials on various occasions with a view to understanding the rationale behind the plan. Subsequent to close examination of the plan and the information made available by the government, we have jointly concluded that the Lantau Concept Plan contains serious flaws because of the following:


1.      Lack of justification for proposed developments

Before any facility should be considered on Lantau, the government should provide firstly, a ¡§needs analysis¡¨ to justify why the proposed facility is essential to Hong Kong and how it can equitably benefit the community, and secondly, a ¡§site selection study¡¨ to justify why it is preferable to locate the relevant facility on Lantau and not elsewhere. The limited information provided by relevant government departments showed that neither thorough analysis nor stakeholder consultation for each of the proposed facilities have been conducted. As these proposed facilities cannot yet be justified by scientific data and community support, it is premature to even consider a draft concept plan for Lantau. For instance, some logistics industry operators are doubtful of the economic viability of a new logistic park given the planned expansion of related facilities at Chek Lap Kok, as well as the lower labour, lower land costs and proximity to vendors in the Mainland.


2.      Failure to consider cumulative impacts

The proposed facilities in the Concept Plan, when put together, have a cumulative impact on the environment of Lantau far more significant than each of the individual facilities may have on their own. Not only has this cumulative impact not been explained in the Concept Plan, but also many other related developments, including the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge, the proposed reclamation of 245 hectares for Container Terminal No. 10 off the shore of Tai O, the proposed LNG Terminal at Soko Islands (which formed part of the 2001 South West New Territories Development Strategy Review), are not even included in the Concept Plan. The public is therefore being deprived of the opportunity to consider the pros and cons of the Concept Plan in a holistic manner. For instance, the proposed reclamations required for the logistic park and the Container Terminal No. 10 combined will be over 355 hectares, equivalent to 9 times the size of West Kowloon Cultural District.


3.      Deviation from community value and sustainable development principles

In recent years the Hong Kong community has demonstrated clearly, through incidents ranging from the harbour reclamation debate to the latest rejection of the Wanchai Mega Tower application, that we do not want ¡§growth at all costs¡¨, but that only ¡§quality growth¡¨ which respects the environment, enhances our quality of life, and brings about equitable benefits to the entire community will be welcome. Despite the proclaimed objective of sustainable development, the Concept Plan failed to demonstrate how it can achieve such objectives. On the contrary, many local residents are unsure of how the Plan can bring about sustainable benefits. For instance, Tung Chung residents are worried that the already poor air quality there will be much worsened as the Plan fails to address any of their concerns. With a lower population projection and an unresolved air quality problem, it is also unclear why it is necessary or desirable for the population in Tung Chung to expand by three times to 220,000.


4.      Lack of in-depth and informed public participation

Although some government officials, notably from the Planning Department, have been diligent in exchanging views with various community groups, the lack of thorough information and the failure by the various responsible departments to conduct coordinated consultation (e.g. Economic, Development & Labour Bureau, Port Development Council, Tourism Commission) prevented the public from informed debate of the various issues. For instance, the full report on ¡§Study on Hong Kong Port ¡V Master Plan 2020¡¨ is not generally available for public scrutiny. This casts in doubt the quality of public input over the last three months. Furthermore, the format of forums and information sessions also failed to allow the public to undertake in-depth ¡§envisioning¡¨ of Lantau¡¦s future, which should have been a key objective at this early stage of consultation.


Given the above deficiencies in the Plan, we collectively urge the government to take the following steps regarding the Lantau Concept Plan and the related developments proposed for Lantau:


Step 1: Withdraw the Lantau Concept Plan;

Step 2: For each of the proposed facilities, conduct full ¡§needs analysis¡¨ and ¡§site selection analysis¡¨ and make the results available to the public in full; Conduct public engagement exercise for each of the facilities (including the HK-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge, CT 10 and LNG Terminal) and assess public acceptance on a case-by-case basis;

Step 3: Draw up a Revised Lantau Concept Plan by incorporating the long-established conservation needs and those publicly accepted facilities deemed to be consistent with the vision for Lantau; Conduct a public engagement exercise on the Revised Lantau Concept Plan, setting out cumulative effects through the help of a strategic impact assessment and focusing on the ¡§envisioning¡¨ of Lantau in accordance with principles of sustainable development and the community aspiration to Keep Lantau Beautiful.


When considering sustainable development for the entire territory of Hong Kong, we feel strongly that Lantau, due to its unique natural setting, ecological assets and cultural heritage, should be endowed with a ¡§Conservation-First Status¡¨. In other words, conservation should be regarded as the default planning presumption for Lantau. Development concepts which are not conservation-oriented should only be considered if they do not compromise the conservation presumption for Lantau as a whole, and each concept must be fully justified on its own. The recommendations contained in the Lantau Conservation Plan, a document issued by six environmental groups in 1998, should be incorporated in any revised Lantau concept plan.

To demonstrate the government¡¦s commitment to sustainable development, we urge the Chief Executive to take immediate steps to honour the government¡¦s commitment and put into effect the Lantau North (Extension) Country Park gazetted and approved by the Country Parks Board in July 2001. From the public¡¦s perspective, this country park extension was intended to be a mitigation of the port and airport development in North Lantau, which should have been put in place even without the new concept plan.



*              *              *

Civil society groups supporting the Joint Statement:


Association of Tai O Environment and Development

Clear the Air

The Conservancy Agency, US (Hong Kong Branch)

The Conservancy Association

Friends of the Earth (HK)

Green Across the Pacific, Inc

Green Lantau Association

Green Peng Chau Association

Green Power

Green Sense

Green Students Council

Hong Kong Birdwatching Society

Hong Kong Dolphinwatch Ltd.

Hong Kong Outdoors

Lantau Buffalo Association

Living Islands Movement

Sai Kung Association

Save our Shorelines

WWF Hong Kong