Civic Exchange Creating Opportunities – Saving Hong Kong’s Natural Heritage
VALUE MANAGEMENT WORKSHOP WORKSHOP REPORT
22 March 2002
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On 22 March 2002, more than 65 people gathered at a workshop facilitated by Civic Exchange to consider a variety of conservation mechanisms with the aim reaching consensus on which were the most promising ones and discuss how they could be implemented in Hong Kong. Participants included government officials, developers, ecologists, conservationists, green groups and academics. The proceedings were conducted in both English and Cantonese. Lisa Hopkinson of Civic Exchange presented an overview of the various conservation mechanisms using a hypothetical case of an abandoned Hakka village for illustration. The area was considered to have high ecological value, but developers had already bought much of the land. The mechanisms considered included: • Using existing legislative mechanisms, such as using the Town Planning Ordinance (TPO); • Swapping land with landowners so they could obtain land elsewhere; • Buying the land and putting it in a trust; • Creating conservation easements to compensate landowner for not developing; • Creating a mitigation bank where developers could be compensated for habitat destruction through the purchase of credits. The money would be used to buy ecologically valuable land and for off-site mitigation; • Creating “Tradable Development Rights” (TDR) where credits given to owners of areas zoned for conservation could be traded for development rights elsewhere. Much of the discussion revolved around how to obtain land at a fair price without driving up land costs through speculation. The history of new town development in the New Territories showed that speculators bought agricultural land in the hope (“hope value”) that there could be future development potential, thereby driving up land prices. In developing a comprehensive conservation policy for Hong Kong, it would be critical to clearly delineate conservation areas and remove the “hope” of development potential from them. This would help to ease tensions between the government and developers. Several mechanisms could work for Hong Kong but they needed to be kept flexible and simple. A complicated mechanism would deter participation. The use of existing legislative mechanisms - rezoning to creating Conservation Areas (CAs) or Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) by using the Town Planning Ordinance – was identified as a useful first step. However, these tools have their limitations – they neither ensure the proper management of the land nor, where there is an active development interest, prevent objections. Land resumption was identified as a powerful mechanism although it was recognised that it would be costly and thus requires general acceptance that nature conservation was a public necessity. The use of the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) combined with mitigation banking for offsite mitigation was also widely supported. Monies from mitigation payments could also be used to purchase ecologically valuable land and put it in a trust. However, this mechanism was seen as a reactive response to development and speculation. Land swaps based on the Letters A&B system could work, as there is a historical precedent for that kind of swap and it seemed fair to compensate landowners for the change in land use. Most ecologically valuable sites could easily be identified and the swap could be limited in scope. Overall, there was a consensus that conservation mechanisms must be cost-effective, protect landowner rights and reduce “hope value” speculation. The social and economic implications must also be balanced against the need for conservation. Issues that were discussed but not resolved at the workshop and which could form the focus of future focused discussions included how to fund and manage conservation mechanisms and how conservation priorities could be evaluated.
Page 1
Page 2
INTRODUCTION 1.1
BACKGROUND
1.1.1
On 22 March 2002, Civic Exchange held a bilingual workshop on nature conservation in Hong Kong. The workshop was based on “Creating Opportunities—Saving Hong Kong’s Natural Heritage,” a paper published by Civic Exchange. The paper draws on international experience to identify a menu of conservation mechanisms that may be useful for Hong Kong. Whilst some of these mechanisms have been discussed previously on a conceptual basis, there had yet to be a thorough discussion of their applicability to Hong Kong.
1.1.2
Building on insights arising from the workshop, Civic Exchange will add an additional chapter to its final conservation report to discuss how Hong Kong could take the various mechanisms forward. The final report will be published along with two other reports — on heritage conservation, and assessing the economic valuation of nature conservation.
1.2
PURPOSE OF WORKSHOP
1.2.1
The primary purpose of the workshop was to involve parties interested in conservation in discussion, to inform them of mechanisms that were in use in other parts of the world and to invite people to determine how such mechanisms could be introduced in Hong Kong.
1.2.2
The objectives of the workshop were to: ♦
Identify conservation mechanisms that have broad-based support;
♦
Emphasise creative, market-driven mechanisms;
♦
Create win-win opportunities for the environment and development.
Page 3
2
VALUE MANAGEMENT METHODOLOGY
2.1
SUMMARY OF VM METHODOLGY
2.1.1
The workshop followed the Value Management approach that allows participants to build upon each other’s ideas in a positive way. Initially, participants shared information about the project so that all participants could hear what is important to each other and actively listen to peer experience. Participants then analysed the information by discussing the pros and cons of the various conservation mechanisms. In the creative thinking session, participants were asked to think as widely as possible about conservation opportunities without judging them. A discussion then followed on the most promising mechanisms. Participants were then asked to creatively determine how conservation mechanisms could be introduced to Hong Kong.
2.1.2
To promote as much participation as possible, the workshop was split into five groups. First, the small groups looked at the pros and cons of one of the conservation mechanisms and analysed them for the whole workshop. Participants also worked in small groups during the creative thinking stage and provided a summary of their ideas to the whole workshop for further discussion.
2.1.3
The workshop and each of the small groups were facilitated to ensure that participants were comfortable, able to contribute effectively and that an atmosphere conducive to creative thinking was maintained. Participants and presenters were invited to contribute their knowledge, understanding and experience to help resolve challenges to conservation in Hong Kong.
2.2
PARTICIPANTS
2.2.1
An important factor in the success of group problem solving is to ensure that the group has participants who collectively have a good knowledge and understanding to help resolve problems. This workshop was an open forum. In addition, people known to be interested and knowledgeable in the conservation field were invited.
2.2.2
To help inform the debate, a panel of knowledgeable people was invited to contribute to the workshop and explain which mechanism(s) in their opinion would be most likely to work in Hong Kong.
2.2.3
A full list of participants is given in Annex A.
Page 4
3
PRESENTATIONS AND DISCUSSION
3.1
OVERVIEW OF CONSERVATION MEACHANISMS
3.1.1
Lisa Hopkinson of Civic Exchange presented an overview of conservation mechanisms using a hypothetical situation of an abandoned Hakka village, called Shek Pui Wai, with land in both private and public ownership, with much of the private land already in the hands of developers. It is an ecological “hotspot” situated just outside Sai Kung Country Park where the land had not been zoned for any particular purpose.
3.1.2
Using existing legislation, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department could gazette a new country park boundary to include Shek Pui Wai. However, landowners are expected to object. Using the Town Planning Ordinance (TPO), Shek Pui Wai could be further zoned for conservation, increasing the area devoted to Conservation Areas (CAs) and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). There would be no compensation for zoning and, once again, there would likely be objections to CA and SSSI zonings. Alternatively, the Lands Department could resume Shek Pui Wai for conservation use using the Lands Resumption Ordinance and pay compensation to landowners based on the value for agricultural land use.
3.1.3
Using the land swap mechanism, the Lands Department could offer land with the same economic value (agricultural land) or offer public housing in a new town as compensation. Furthermore, by creating a land trust, private sector donations could fund a conservation body to buy up Shek Pui Wai from private developers for long-term protection.
3.1.4
With a conservation easement, a conservation organisation could enter into a contractual arrangement with the developer not to develop Shek Pui Wai and would pay him for non-development. A contractual breach would be settled in court. In the US, there are tax benefits associated with conservation easements. In Hong Kong, new tax write-offs would need to be created (such as deductions from profits tax or land premium payments in relation to other developments by the same developer).
3.1.5
With mitigation banking, a developer who has caused environmental damage elsewhere and must mitigate off-site could buy credits from the mitigation bank instead. The mitigation bank (either managed by the government or by an independent third party) would buy Shek Pui Wai and conserve it.
3.1.6
Tradable Development Rights (TDR) can be described as town planning zoning with compensation. Here Shek Pui Wai and other conservation areas would be zoned for conservation and be designated as “sending zones”. Credits would be given to landowners according to the ecological value of the land. These credits would be used to develop land in designated “receiving zones”. The market would determine the value of the credits.
3.2
PANEL DISCUSSION
3.2.1
The panellists were selected to represent a wide range of interests - a government official, representatives from two leading conservation groups, a developer, and an ecologist. The panellists were invited to speak in their personal capacities to state the conservation mechanism they felt were most likely to work in Hong Kong.
3.2.2
Gordon Ongley, Real Estate Developers Association (REDA), noted that developers and landowners looked for profitable opportunities. The real issue is not the inability of the Government to manage public land, but a complicate, historical background to conservation, including a 1982 legal decision that farming land could be for non-agricultural uses. This led to speculation and provided a “hope value” for owners. With the current lack of a clear policy, developers and government officials were both frustrated because it was hard to process a development proposal. Officials were wary of being Page 5
accused of bias in approving a proposal. Existing policies should be the basis for implementation but needed to be applied more flexibly. Those areas which need special treatment should be identified quickly and there should be a liberal land exchange policy (like letters A/B – and IOU and tradable vouchers). He believed that such a scheme would decrease tensions between developers and the Government. 3.2.3
Gordon Ng, Conservancy Association, felt that Hong Kong needed a clear conservation policy for land with high conservation value. The land could be resumed by the Government and there could be a public / private partnership programme, transferring development rights in terms of land swaps or plot ratio with an appropriate enabling institution. In addition, more conservation-related data is needed.
3.2.4
Professor Richard Corlett, Department of Ecology and Biodiversity at the University of Hong Kong, thought that Hong Kong could use existing legislation more effectively. He believes Hong Kong already has sufficient data on the locations of land with high conservation value but that information is not being used to guide zoning under the TPO. However, zoning would not be sufficient on its own because it does not provide for proper management for designated conservation areas. CAs and SSSIs needed to be brought within the country parks so that they could be properly managed.
3.2.5
Alex Yau, World Wide Fund for Nature Hong Kong, provided an alternative perspective. Hong Kong has a large number of conservation sites where development possibilities have already been limited, but they need to be made absolute "no go" areas. In order to prevent degradation of these areas and to promote proper management, the creation of “land trusts” is a mechanism that could work. The trust management would hold the title to the land and could manage a land credit system. She advocated the prevention of degradation through land use control, controlling land ownership and managing resources.
3.2.6
CC Lay, Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD), clarified that the Government has an existing conservation policy that protects a lot of ecologically sensitive land. He noted that many of the policy options and conservation mechanisms presented in the workshop had been discussed within the Government. However, many of the ecologically important areas that required further protection are under private ownership. Under such circumstances, Hong Kong needs to be practical when balancing conservation and development. Mechanisms should be cost effective and landowners’ rights must be respected. Much of Hong Kong’s ecologically sensitive areas were agricultural land with limited scope for development. Mitigation banking, using the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO), is a possible mechanism. However, there are technical issues to be considered, such as compensation packages. One option is to levy a 1% conservation fee on development, which would apply to all projects. This may or may not be over and above the mitigation required under the EIAO. Alternatively, the impact of individual projects could be considered and priced accordingly.
Discussion 3.2.7
Following the panel contributions, discussion was opened to the floor. A summary of the views put forward is included here.
3.2.8
It was agreed that much of the agriculture land and ecologically important land are in private hands. Whilst rezoning land to conservation status could help Hong Kong meet many of its conservation goals, there are conflicting pressures to rezone green belt areas for village development. The Small House Policy is a real challenge as it promotes haphazard and unplanned development. With most lowland areas already developed, there is pressure to move upland and outside villages. As such, village development causes incremental degradation. Furthermore, as the Government improves access to rural areas, their “hope value” increases. A key threat to conservation is that the public at large has yet to accept nature conservation as an important goal.
3.2.9
Panellists and participants pointed out that existing policies, ordinances and mechanisms could be
Page 6
used more effectively. However, there is a lack of political will and a lack of consensus in the community as to what is required and how to achieve it. The Government needs to become more open and transparent in how it wants to mould its land policy. Senior policy-makers need to be more sensitised to the need for ecological conservation.
3.3 3.3.1
KEY ISSUES & CONCERNS Participants were split into groups and asked to identify the key issues and areas of importance, which were then shared with the whole workshop. The purpose of this exercise was two-fold – to allow participants the opportunity to air their views and to enable participants to begin to understand each others’ points of view. 1 (8) (9) 2 3 (18) (13) (15) 4 5 (12) 6 7 10 11 14 16 (20) 17 19 21 22
What is the definition of conservation – is it the natural or built environment? What is to be preserved and conserved? What is natural heritage? The entire territory of HK? Should cultural heritage be included? Would natural capital be a better term? How to conserve private land? There are large areas in private ownership. Government policies are unclear. Want the government to set out a comprehensive policy stating what is Class 1 / 2 / 3 etc. Control is reactive – need to be proactive There is a lack of integration between government departments to act conservation issues Government lacks the will or means to conserve There needs to be a comprehensive database to record each piece of land. There is concern about the public use of data. There is no concept of catchment planning and land downstream can be affected by development upstream Wetlands are the most vulnerable habitat – in danger of pollution upstream Trade off with economics and conservation Existing legislation doesn’t take account of biodiversity Village / Small House developments are being abused Recommendations from previous working groups on conservation have not progressed Public participation and discussion on what to conserve is needed The operation of the Town Planning /Railways Ordinances are not transparent Decision-making appears arbitrary The conservation of ecological hotspots. These areas were economic realities when the country parks were set up and hence were excluded. Country parks are not managed by partnerships between Government / conservation groups and local owners There is a large amount of land already conserved – a good record to build upon. Rezoning can work both ways – there is pressure to rezone green belt
Page 7
4
PROS & CONS OF EACH MECHANISM
4.1
INTRODUCTION
4.1.1
The analysis of each mechanism continued with groups looking in detail at each mechanism and discussing the respective pros and cons. The results of each groups deliberations were presented to the whole workshop
4.2
LAND SWAPS Pros Easy to set up administratively No cash requirement Voluntary conservation – incentive to maintain value Government takes a bigger role in developing infrastructure
Cons Owners are reluctant Fail to achieve conservation objective Limited land supply
Valuation process is difficult NIMBY – not in my backyard 4.3
LAND TRUST Pros Independent institution to management trust Enables proactive land management Institution holds land title Similar experience exists in Hong Kong
4.4
Cons Require a lot of money High land cost Long lead time for legislation
CONSERVATION EASEMENTS Pros Cons Landowners still own the land (and many Serious concern about opening floodgate for claims landowners want to keep the land) Legally binding contractual relationship Not clear that understanding works – or would constitute a conservation easement Could help rehabilitate abandoned land. There is a limited duration – typically 5 to 10 years Retain the abandoned status of land Workable where villagers care about the Most villagers would see this as a way of making land money – not conservation Might work best with fishponds What kind of activities would be allowed? Mai Po started as a conservation easement There are many landowners and the number of conservation easements needed is daunting No lump sum treatment – need smaller Voluntary agreement revenue May work in selected areas – e.g. fishponds Monitor the agreement Cheaper than land resumption Where will the money come from? Difficult to calculate the payment Paying villagers for abandoning the land What are the implications of Government / NGOs
Page 8
becoming the operator of farms in HK? A lot of important land is abandoned – not clear who to make the agreement with Open Pandora’s box to compensation for abandoned land 4.5
MITIGATION BANKING
4.5.1
Conditions Required for Mitigation Banking include: • • •
Off-site mitigation enabled in EIAO No net-loss of area and/or function Re-createable systems
Pros Consolidation of areas (where appropriate) Efficiency Flexibility Mitigation can be co-ordinated Early mitigation Easy to monitor and manage 4.5.2
Questions • • • •
4.6
Cons Only works for replaceable habitats Yard stick for credits required Promotes destruction / carelessness Passive / reactive response for development Limited availability of land in HK Speculation – could drive prices very high
How do you calculate credits (exchange ratios)? Who manages the process (permitting and banking)? Can security be guaranteed in the long term? Ensuring success – how early can mitigation commence?
TRADABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS Pros Market driven mechanism – economically win-win No need for more land - just switching development between existing land in use
Cons Confusing mechanism to understand
If areas already zoned say agriculture, there are no development rights attached. Hence any form of compensation would be for speculative “hope value” Limited funding needed from the Only appropriate where an actual development right government exists e.g. cultural / urban heritage where development rights are already granted and therefore need to compensate to stop development. Will be able to regulate the process in a Determination of credit value will be difficult. system of exchange monitored by the government Still doesn’t price for ultimate conservation – property still in the hands of private landowners who may renege on the deal not to develop and will not take steps to actively manage conservation land. If landowner obtains and sells credits for dollars there is no potential accumulation of value on the land. This goes against the system of profiting in perpetuity. Page 9
4.6.1
Questions/Issues • • • • •
4.7
What rights to trade? For agricultural land there is no development right – should not realise the hope value of land. How can the ecological value be monetised? Can this achieve ecological objectives? – It may not as owner still owns the land. Too complicated and may be impracticable.
EXISTING LEGISLATION Zoning – TPO first Step Pros Flexible CA/SSSI zoning quite strong
Cons Green belt needs to be taken seriously Difficult to amend the TPO Column 1 uses not always compatible
EIAO – large developments require mitigation, compensation etc Pros Cons Active management for conservation Reactive Loss on certain designated areas
Page 10
5
IDEA GENERATION & EVALUATION
5.1
INTRODUCTION
5.1.1
Once as full an understanding as possible has been shared of the scope of the problem and relevant issues, participants were ready to generate ideas that could lead to possible specific solutions.
5.1.2
During this phase, the following guidelines were given: • • • • • •
No criticism or evaluation of ideas Wild ideas were encouraged as they may lead to solutions Quantity not quality of ideas were important Build on the ideas of others Focus on a single problem or issue Record all ideas
5.1.3
All the groups were asked to consider the mechanisms and the pros and cons of each and consider which mechanisms were most promising. They were asked to consider how they could be introduced to Hong Kong and who (government, public-private body or NGO) could best oversee the implementation.
5.2
GROUP 1
5.2.1
Group 1 considered that one single mechanism was not appropriate. Each mechanism could be valid in certain circumstances. They developed a matrix, which considered each of the mechanisms against a set of 4 dimensions of criteria. The matrix (not exhaustive) is outlined below. Dimensions of Criteria Conservation Values Mechanisms
Enhance
Maintain
Save
Urgency to Compensation - Human Factors Conserve practicable Very
Not
Highly
Least possible
Preconserve
Anticonserve
Existing Legislation (e.g. zoning) Land Swaps / Land Trust Conservation Easements Mitigation banking Tradable Development Rights
5.2.2
Group 1 believed that it was important that the discussion be continued. The question was raised as to how to maintain and continue dialogue. Many people who were present at the workshop had a greater understanding than at previous gatherings, but the dialogue should be carried to other sectors of the community.
5.3
GROUP 2
5.3.1
Group 2 thought that the best mechanism to take forward conservation was the EIAO. The EIAO could be combined with mitigation banking or a land trust as relevant or necessary.
5.3.2
The key points were: • Polluter pays • Land preferable to cash • Land assessed ecologically Page 11
•
On-site mitigation and off-site mitigation to be considered
5.3.3
The following issues needed to be addressed • What should the compensatory ratio be (1:1, 1:2, 1:3 or determined on a case by case basis)? • Opportunistic approach – should the mitigation be like for like? If wetland then new wetland or could new conservation areas be established, if woodland, ask for wetland? • Simplicity – 1% of project cost. Is that enough to cover the cost of land and long-term maintenance? • Who should be the authority? EPD to act as a land trust? What would the relationship be with the Advisory Council on the Environment (ACE)? • Restrict the transferable right of ownership for small houses. The small house policy is not efficient and leads to low density housing. Woodlands adjacent to villages suffer. • Give up lower value land to protect ecological hotspots.
5.4
GROUP 3
5.4.1
Group 3 supported mitigation banking as a preferred option. Mitigation credits could be purchased with cash or land. The Government could also designate some areas or hotspots and divide them into units for purchase by the mitigation bank. If a developer wishes to develop any area, it could buy credits from the bank. This approach could also follow from the EIAO.
5.4.2
Other ideas: • Public/ Private partnership – developer buys whole area and develops only part, managing the remainder as a conservation area • Encourage environmentally friendly farming / agricultural practices • Provide financial support for farmers to continue to farm in a traditional or environmentally sensitive manner • Set up an eco-fund • Promote eco-tourism: make the land profitable
5.5
GROUP 4
5.5.1
Group 4 used Sha Lo Tung to focus their creative energy. The first step was to zone the area as a SSSI. However, this did not ensure active management and protection of the conservation area. Group 3 considered funds for management. There was a social responsibility to conserve (like education) and the community should pay. Sources of possible funding were identified but acknowledged to be difficult to implement without a higher acceptance by the public of the value of conservation: • • •
New form of tax, e.g. Conservation Levy or poll tax. Increase the % of existing taxes. Change land premium system.
5.5.2
An implementation agency (Land Protection Foundation) should determine the best way to protect an area, whether to buy or actively manage the conservation areas. This body should have private, NGO and community representation.
5.5.3
If the decision was to manage the land to enhance the ecological value, options included: • Compensating the owner to protect the land • Managing the land through conservation groups or others
5.5.4
If the decision was to buy the land, issues included:
Page 12
• • •
Market negotiation Authority to establish an appeal mechanism for disputes on value (difficult to attach a value to ecology) There would need to be an independent board for dispute resolution on value
5.6
GROUP 5
5.6.1
Group 5 recognised that existing mechanisms for land resumption were well established. However, there is no recognition by the Government that land should be resumed for conservation purposes. This should be tackled immediately – the Government needed to upgrade the importance of conservation and concerned parties needed to lobby hard.
5.6.2
Zoning did not provide active management of conservation areas. Many ecologically sensitive areas were in private hands. Government needed to gain control of the land and may need to buy the surrounding land to protect one area.
5.6.3
An exchange mechanism, such as Letters B, could be introduced. An agricultural area would have an equivalent residential area. Alternatively, cash payments could be made, or the Government could provide a public housing unit for every village house returned. The cost would be small compared to the cost of providing infrastructure to develop isolated villages
5.6.4
Other proposals included NGOs persuading developers to buy-up surrounding lands. Once a part of the land had been developed, the remaining environmentally sensitive areas would be passed to the NGO for management.
Page 13
6
REVIEW & DISCUSSION
6.1.1
The main outcome of the workshop was that several conservation mechanisms could work in Hong Kong. In developing those mechanisms, they must be kept flexible and simple. If they are too complicated, people might just back away and not wish to take up the offer in case they lost out.
6.1.2
The use of existing mechanisms provided by current legislation was favoured, with rezoning to CA or SSSI under the TPO identified as the most favoured first step. However, rezoning would not ensure proper management of the land. It would also likely draw objections from landowners. Land resumption would enable proper management but that option would need conservation to be recognised as a public necessity.
6.1.3
Much of the discussion revolved around how to obtain land at a fair price without driving up land cost. In the past, speculation on the development rights of farming land had led to high expectations, giving a “hope value” for the land. A comprehensive and effective conservation policy would need to clearly delineate conservation areas and remove any “hope value” of development, which would help decrease tensions between the Government and developers.
6.1.4
The EIAO combined with mitigation banking for off-site mitigation and purchase of conservation lands for placement in a trust was also widely supported. However, this was seen as a reactive response to development and speculation.
6.1.5
Land swaps based on the Letters A&B system also has potential as there is a historical precedent and it seems fair to compensate landowners for the change in land use. Most ecologically valuable sites can be easily identified and the swap could be limited in scope.
6.1.6
Where development rights already exist, such as areas of cultural and urban heritage, landowners need compensation to stop degradation. This is one area where TDR were considered appropriate, as developers would be given other land with equal development potential.
6.1.7
A proper compensation mechanism needs to be cost-effective to implement, supported by legislative force. It also needs to minimize speculation and balance private property rights with conservation needs.
6.1.8
A clear conservation policy regarding the need for conservation areas and the means to achieve conservation would help to put conservation into perspective for the Hong Kong public.
6.1.9
The dialogue started at the workshop should be continued. Issues that were discussed but not resolved could form the focus of future gatherings, including ways to fund and manage conservation mechanisms and how conservation policies could be evaluated.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Civic Exchange wishes to thank all the participants for their time and contributions and the panellists for a stimulating discussion. Civic Exchange is also grateful to Lindsay Pickles, Ivy Ning, Kathy Chan, Johnny Leung, Eric Yeung and Rita So for facilitating the discussion. The support of John Wadsworth, the Real Estate Developers Association and the assistance of the Business Environment Council is also much appreciated.
Page 14
ANNEX A: PARTICIPANT LIST 1 Wong Lai Lay So Leven Chiu Ho Copeland Chiu Leung Taylor Chiu Marafa Sharma Lo Choy Ng Norman Fong Laister Ning Chan Leung Yeung So Pickles Lee Chan Cheng Kilburn Wong Ma Chan Ng Dudgeon Corlett Hau Yip Mantel Chan Lee Leung Wong Chan Choi Chakraborty McNaughton Hay Money 1
Hon-meng Patrick CC PM Michael Sein-Tuck Henry Anne Rita Andrew Selene Lawal Charu Ivy Kate Gordon Tim Terence Steve Ivy Kathy Johnny Eric Rita Lindsay Wai Duen Sannie Looking Mike Dickson Florence HF Patrick David Richard Billy Jackie Sukhamani Alex YS Denise Kenneth Thierry Yat Man Manab Iain Allan Suzie
EPD AFCD AFCD AFCD Asia Ecological Consultants Baptist University, Biology Department Binnie Black and Veatch BMT Asia Pacific Ltd Business Environment Council BV Cheung Kong Holdings Chinese University, Geography CityU, Law Faculty CK Law's Office (LegCo) Conservancy Association Conservancy Association Ecosystem Applied Ecologists ERM ERM Facilitator Facilitator Facilitator Facilitator Facilitator Facilitator GHK Green Peng Chau Green Power HK Birdwatching Society HK Marine Conservation Society HK PolyU, Dpmt of Building and Real Estate HKIE Environmental Division Hong Kong Institution of Engineers HKU, Dpmt of Ecology HKU, Dpmt of Ecology HKU, Dpmt of Ecology HKU, Dpmt of Ecology HKU, Dpmt of Ecology HKU, Dpmt of Geography HKU, Dpmt of Geography HKU, Graduate Student Insignia Brooke International Marinelife Alliance ISO-Ing Technologies Ltd KFBG Lands Department Lands Department Make the Waters Smile Campaign
Accurate as of 21/3/02
Page 15
Yorke Tung Cheung Lau Ng Wong Ng Stokes Chew Ng Uebergang Salas Leung Chan Baretto Ongley Sit Birch Shui Yau Barretto Leven Wong Yau Woo Broom
Wendy Christopher Amy Shui-chi Augustine Nicholas Kenneth Ed Mathew Cho-nam Kylie Maria Terence Queenie Karen Gordon Edward Linden Lily WK Ruy Liz Andrew Alex Karen Sam
Make the Waters Smile Campaign Mallesons Stephen Jacques Planning Department Planning Department Planning Department Private Individual Private Individual Private Individual Private Individual Private Individual Civic Exchange Private Individual Private Individual Private Individual Private Individual REDA/Swire Properties Society of HK Planning Technicians Swire Properties Tai Po Environmental Association Tai Po Environmental Association Temple Chambers Territory Development Department Territory Development Department World Wide Fund for Nature World Wide Fund for Nature World Wide Fund for Nature
Page 16