PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESSES IN HONG KONG Eleanor Bastian Civic Exchange Intern Summer 2005 Wellesley College
1
1.0
INTRODUCTION The Hong Kong Special Administrative Government has begun to solicit the public’s views through public engagement processes (PEP). This paper will review two recent PEPs and comment on how they can be improved in the future.
2.0
CASE STUDY: PEP FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
2.1
The History of the PEP In March 2004, the Sustainable Development Unit (SDU) 1 and Council for Sustainable Development (CSD) 2 commenced an engagement process towards developing a First Sustainable Development Strategy for Hong Kong. The three Pilot Areas, or the topics within urban sustainable development that the process focused upon, were solid waste management, renewable energy, and urban living space. Three Support Groups were also put together comprising members of the public, as well as business and NGO representatives. The Support Groups were charged to identify key issues in their respective Pilot Areas, assemble an Invitation and Response Document3, and record the public’s response during the engagement in order to put forth proposals to the CSD.4 From July to November 2004, the SDU and CSD hosted forums and workshops, and disseminated information on the engagement and sustainable development through exhibitions, internet chat rooms, and interactive seminars. The forums and workshops were framed so that the public could contribute their ideas about future development in Hong Kong and comment on the pros and cons of specific proposed initiatives. The CSD received over 1,900 responses to the IR document through various channels,
1 The Sustainable Development Unit is an administrative unit under the Chief Secretary for Administration. Their main tasks are “to facilitate the integration of sustainable development into new Government initiatives and programmes and in the community generally, and to provide support to the Council for Sustainable Development.” From the Sustainable Development Unit website, http://www.susdev.gov.hk/html/en/su/. 2 The Council for Sustainable Development was created in April 2003 by the Chief Executive in order to promote sustainability in Hong Kong. The terms of reference of the Council are to advise the Government on the priority areas it should address in promoting sustainable development; to advise on the preparation of a sustainable development strategy for Hong Kong that will integrate economic, social and environmental perspectives; to facilitate community participation in the promotion of sustainable development in Hong Kong through various means, including the award of grants from the Sustainable Development Fund; and to promote public awareness and understanding of the principles of sustainable development. From the CSD website, click on “Council for Sustainable Development,” at http://www.susdev.gov.hk/html/en/su/. 3 The Invitation and Response Document was designed to convey information about issues within the Pilot Areas and set parameters for the public’s engagement on the Pilot Areas. 4 See p. 31, “Terms of Reference of the Support Groups” in Making Choices for our Future: Report on the Engagement Process for a First Sustainable Development Strategy at http://www.susdev.org.hk/, click on “Report on the Engagement Process.”
2
and total attendance at the public stakeholder events [was] more than 1,400 people.”5 After the completion of these various activities, which formed part of the total PEP aimed at gauging the desires of the public, the Support Groups’ proposals were considered by the CSD. In May 2005, the SDU released “A First Sustainable Development Strategy for Hong Kong,” which introduces strategic objectives and targets for Hong Kong sustainable development as well as fifteen key initiatives that will require further public engagement.6 2.2
The Obstacle to Public Engagement
2.2.1
The major issue that became obvious as the PEP progressed was that the process did not convey a prominent vision of sustainable development (SD); there was concern expressed by participants that the SDU and CSD did not put forward an unambiguous view of SD and sustainability to focus the deliberation.7 It has been observed that by not having stated clearly upfront what SD was some participants mistakenly believed that the concept could mean many things that actually fell outside sustainability principles. 8 Accordingly, it more difficult for participants to find a place to begin the discussion.
2.2.2
The lack of definition around the topic of sustainable development may have arisen because the organizers assumed that participants were already aware of what SD specifically meant, and could immediately begin the discussion on what sustainability means specifically for Hong Kong. However, the lack of focus could also have been the result of a failure to understand the purpose of public engagement. The organizers of the PEP may have lacked a critical approach to sustainable development because they erroneously expected the PEP to function as a vehicle for decision-making. PEPs are not decisionmaking mechanisms, but deliberative in nature, so that the outcomes can help to inform, rather than direct or limit, decision-making. It is the responsibility of appointed and elected government officials to create, direct and implement policy; PEPs are intended as a space for citizens to deliberate and provide input on proposed policy so that officials are able to make appropriate decisions.9 The PEP organizers may not have been picky about how SD was discussed as they gave too much import to the contributions of the public and de-emphasized their leadership in the process as a major stakeholder and decision-maker.
Ibid. pg. 10. The Strategy can be viewed at http://www.susdev.org.hk/en/Strategy/index.html. 7 Interview, SDU, 29 June 2005. 8 Ibid. 9 See Christine Loh, Promoting Sustainability Tools: Connecting Thinking and Dialogue Skills, p. 1, Civic Exchange (2003). 5 6
3
3.0
CASE STUDY: THE HARBOURFRONT ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE (HEC), CIVIL ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (CEDD), PLANNING DEPARTMENT (PD), TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT (TD), HOUSING PLANNING AND LANDS BUREAU (HPLB), AND ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND WORKS BUREAU’S (ETWB) ENVISIONING STAGE OF THE HARBOURFRONT ENHANCEMENT REVIEW—WAN CHAI, CAUSEWAY BAY AND ADJOINING AREAS (HER-ES)
3.1
The History of HER-ES In February 2003, the Society for Protection of the Harbour (SPH) applied for judicial review of the Town Planning Board’s approval of the draft Wan Chai North Outline Zoning Plan.10 In July 2003, the High Court determined that the presumption against reclamation in the PHO meant that reclamation, including reclamation in the Wan Chai North Outline Zoning Plan, must answer a “compelling, overriding, and present need; [with] no viable alternative; and minimum impairment.”11 The Town Planning Board lodged an appeal of the High Court’s judgment with the Court of Final Appeal (CFA), and the CFA’s judgment in January 2004 reinforced that reclamation must satisfy the “overriding public need test.”12 In order to “ensure that the proposed developments will comply with the CFA’s judgment,” The government is conducting a planning and engineering review of the Wan Chai Development Phase II project (WDII Review).13 In 2004 the government decided, under the recommendation of the Harbourfront Enhancement Committee, 14 to conduct a Harbourfront
In June 1997, the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance (PHO) was enacted. The PHO established a “statutory principle recognizing the harbour as a special public asset and a natural heritage of Hong Kong people and prescribing it to be protected and preserved” and imposed “a specific legal duty on public officers and public bodies to abide by the legal principle… in the exercise of any powers vested in them.” See HEC Paper 2/2004, 3, at http://www.harbourfront.org.hk/eng/content_page/her.html?s=1; under “Relevant Papers” click on “Harbour-front Enhancement Committee Paper on Protection of the Harbour Ordinance and the Court of Final Appeal Judgment (6 May 2004).” The SPH applied for judicial review on the assertion that the draft Wan Chai North Outline Zoning Plan violated the PHO. 11 Harbourfront Enhancement Committee (HEC) Paper 2/2004, 6. 12 See HEC Paper 2/2004, for more information on overriding public need. 13 Wan Chai District Council Paper (WCDC) 3/2005, 2.1, at http://www.harbourfront.org.hk/eng/content_page/her.html?s=1; under “Relevant Papers” click on “Wan Chai District Council Paper on the Harbour-front Enhancement Review project (18 January 2005).” 14 The Harbourfront Enhancement Committee was created in May 2004 by the HKSARG as an advisory body for the government via the Secretary for Housing, Planning, and Lands on issues concerning “planning, land uses and developments along the existing and new harbour-front of the Victoria Harbour, with a view to protecting the Harbour; improving the accessibility, utilization and vibrancy of the harbour-front areas; and safeguarding public enjoyment of the Harbour through a balanced, effective and public participation approach”. From the HEC website, click on “Welcome Message” at http://www.harbourfront.org.hk/eng/index/index.html?s=1. See the full terms of reference at “Terms of Reference “ on the above page. 10
4
Enhancement Review (HER) in order to increase public participation in the WDII Review. The engagement process of the Envisioning Stage (HER-ES) was conducted from January to July 2005 and solicited the public’s views in a variety of ways.15 It created a team of “Collaborators,” composed of major stakeholders such as representatives from District Councils, community organizations, environmental organizations, business associations, and academic institutions, who met regularly to discuss HER-ES and provide support for the engagement.16 The government also disseminated information about HER-ES and background material on the WDII Review through “digests, information packages, exhibition panels, 3-D animations,” and uploaded relevant content to the HEC website.17 In addition, telephone, road-side and online opinion surveys were conducted. Finally, five public forums and two community design charettes were held throughout Hong Kong. The forums collected views on what was best for the harbour-front and solicited the public’s views on the proposed set of SD principles and indicators for the project.18 The charettes were designed to help participants to “envision the future harbourfront at Wan Chai and the adjoining areas after gaining a proper understanding of the constraints, opportunities, issues, and concerns of the general public related to the WDII project.”19 A review of HER-ES is expected to be published by the government in Fall 2005. 3.2
The Obstacle to Engagement in HER-ES There was one overriding obstacle to public engagement in HER-ES: some of the involved government departments did not want to participate in HER-ES. Some of the involved departments resisted the idea that constituents could truly inform decision-making; instead, they saw HER-ES as an opportunity to convince the public that there was a compelling and present need for reclamation in order to gain approval for their proposals by satisfying the CFA judgment.20 Some of this resistance may be rooted in the unfamiliarity
15See
the goals for the Envisioning Stage at WCDC Paper 3/2005, 3.1i. “The public will be empowered with adequate understanding of the constraints and opportunities regarding harbour-front enhancement… and be engaged for ideas on the kind of harbour-front that they hope to have. 16 See WCDC Paper 3/2005, 4.3: the Collaborators are charged with “reviewing the constraints and opportunities of harbour-front development; establishing the preliminary set of sustainability principles and indicators, promoting public participation activities through their social network; ensuring a transparent and fair process; and evaluating the Concept Plan and Master Plan.” 17 WCDC Paper 3/2005, 4.5. 18 The nine sustainability principles, including “vibrant and attractive waterfront” and “improve traffic conditions and pedestrian connectivity,” and their respective indicators, are discussed on pages 17 to 31 in the HER-ES Public Engagement Kit. Viewed online at http://www.harbourfront.org.hk/eng/content_page/doc/her/PEK.pdf. 19 Ibid. 4.7. 20 Interview, Save Our Shorelines, 29 July 2005, and Interview, Citizens Envisioning @ Harbour, 18 July 2005.
5
of PEPs for most Hong Kongers, but it could also reflect that PEPs have yet to be accepted by most government bodies as a legitimate practice for informing decision-making. 3.2.1
In some cases, the forums were only a platform for the government to persuade participants that their proposals were the only viable options. The issue was not that the government had a strong opinion—the government has a duty to present proposals that they estimate are appropriate for the community—but it seemed that officials used their power to avoid a discussion of alternatives that meet the PHO’s requirements and could provide more optimal solutions.21 During the Briefing Session at one forum, a transport official gave a detailed PowerPoint presentation on why a trunk road along the harbour-front, and its attendant reclamation, was essential. Problems arose when in the response segment of the session a participant attempted to discuss the presentation and give her own views. The participant was initially unable to give her views because she would go over the permitted three minute time limit for responses and was only able to finish her response because another participant contributed his three minutes.22 At the next forum the same transport official avoided the trunk road issue entirely by giving a presentation that started with the premise that the trunk road must be built in order to circularly prove that there was an overriding public need for the road.23 This pressure on the audience to agree with the government’s proposals, combined with resistance to allowing alternative contributions, indicates that at least this transport official did not embrace the engagement process.
3.2.2
The failure of the first Public Engagement Kit indicates that PEPs still have a long way to go in Hong Kong. The first Kit was prepared by government officials from the HEC Sub-committee on Wan Chai Development Phase II Review and was released in January 2005. It had to be replaced because “the three illustrations contained in the Kit had given rise to confusion with the result that the original objectives of issuing the Kit were not fully comprehended by the community.” 24 The first Kit was rejected because members of the Subcommittee felt that the illustrations assumed reclamation would take place, and therefore confused readers over whether the HER-ES was truly interested in hearing their visions for the harbour-front.25
Interview, Save Our Shorelines, 29 July 2005. Ibid. 23 Ibid. 24 HEC website, News page, 07/02/2005. At http://www.harbourfront.org.hk/eng/index/index.html?s=1, click on “News.” 25 Additionally, there must have been serious miscommunication within the HEC Subcommittee concerning the Envisioning Stage if a Kit was issued without consensus, and if disagreement over the Kit was so significant that it had to be revoked. 21 22
6
3.2.3
The language of HER-ES printed materials is perhaps the strongest indicator that the Government is not yet embracing PEPs as it is still trying to use the process to solely promote its own views. There is excessive slant towards building the Central-Wan Chai Bypass (CWB or “trunk road”), and as a result a draft OZP including a trunk road seems to be a foregone conclusion, and the PEP useless. The first important phrase in HER-ES materials is “engaging the community … while acknowledging the opportunities available and the constraints for development.” 26 This phrase seeks to emphasize that only certain proposals for the harbour-front are viable, which is accurate, especially in context with the experience of the CSD/SDU PEP discussed previously, yet the frequency with which this phrase is repeated in engagement materials may reflect that the Government assumes that there is only one accurate view of the opportunities and constraints in WDII, and would like participants in HER-ES to agree with their view instead of discussing their proposals and providing input. This vague phrase, oftrepeated, and the assumptions behind it, compromised the engagement. The second instance where the slant towards building the CWB is apparent is within the Government’s mission in the Public Engagement Kit. The Kit states that the second part of the Government’s mission along the north shore of Hong Kong is to “complete the missing strategic road link and alleviate traffic congestion.”27 If part of the mission for the entire north shore is to complete the missing strategic road link, the HER-ES’s claim to approach the process “without pre-defined options” seems impossible. 28 In addition, within the introduction to major issues, constraints, and opportunities in the Public Engagement Kit, the only engineering issues considered concern “designing the trunk road in WDII.”29 The implication that there are in fact “pre-defined options” calls in to question the utility of the HER-ES, and whether the Government is interested in public engagement.
Legislative Council Paper, Progress of the Review of WDII and Kai Tak from 22.2.05, p. 3. Variations of the phrase are “the public will be empowered with adequate understanding of the constraints and opportunities regarding harbour-front enhancement” and “participants [will] envision the future harbour-front… after gaining a proper understanding of the constraints, opportunities, issues, and concerns” (WCDC Paper 3/2005, 2, 4). 27 Public Engagement Kit, pg. 5. At http://www.harbourfront.org.hk/eng/index/index.html?s=1, click on “HER” and then “Public Engagement Kit.” 28 Legislative Council Panel on Planning, Lands, and Works Paper 28/06/2005, 3, at http://www.harbourfront.org.hk/eng/content_page/her.html?s=1, under “Legislative Council Papers” click on “LegCo Panel Paper on Wan Chai Development Phase II Review - "Harbour-front Enhancement Review - Wan Chai, Causeway Bay and Adjoining Areas : A Public Engagement Exercise" (28 June 2005).” 29 p. 13. 26
7
4.0
HOW CAN PEPs IN HONG KONG BE IMPROVED? The CSD/SDU and HER-ES engagement processes were impaired because the scope of public engagement as a deliberative, not decision-making, mechanism was not fully comprehended. The CSD/SDU weighted public input to heavily in decision-making and did not take enough of a leadership role. In HER-ES, most governmental bodies assumed that the public input would impair their ability to make decisions and avoided engagement. In both cases, the process would have been more productive if the scope and function of the engagement had been better understood. A way for Hong Kong Government to clarify the scope and function of public engagement is to create a “dialogue” with constituents during the process. Dialogue enables genuine deliberation of complex issues with stakeholders to be created, that PEPs are properly designed, facilitated and recorded, and that the consensus can inform policy-makers of concerns as well as capture good ideas. The Government needs to emphasize that PEPs are deliberative, not decision-making, processes, and dialogue highlights this distinction.
4.1
What is dialogue? “Dialogue” is a “highly specialized form of discussion that has its own set of principles.”30 If designed and facilitated well, dialogue in an engagement process can engage participants to have open and honest talk about important issues. While expertise may be brought in to inform the deliberation, dialogue focuses on enabling the participants to deliberate and explore issues, not necessarily to make decisions. In public dialogue, where public issues are dealt with, participants include government officials, politicians, experts, as well as ordinary constituents. Dialogue sessions are designed to enable deep listening so that the participants can understand the values, perspectives and assumptions that influence how the issue at hand is being viewed. It is through mutual understanding that new insights may be gained, ideas created to solve problems, and commitments made to transform conflict. The use of dialogue in PEP takes advantage of the wealth of intellectual capital by involving committed people in policy exploration and deliberative process. Additionally, intellectual capital is an asset that can be accessed at no cost to the government. Many third sector organizations as well as interested individuals spend much voluntary time coming up with ideas. Creating a working relationship with committed groups in a public engagement can relieve some of the pressure on leaders to find solutions to the myriad of issues facing Hong Kong.
See Christine Loh, Promoting Sustainability Tools: Connecting Thinking and Dialogue Skills, p. 14, Civic Exchange (2003).
30
8
Dialogue also harvests another type of intelligence that is as important as intellectual: emotional intelligence. By creating dialogue with constituents, leaders can keep a finger on the pulse of the community and remain more responsive to changes in the desires and values of the community. Culture, as well as the experiences of the people within it, is not static. Leaders need to connect to their constituents to ensure that decisions are compatible with a continually evolving community. 4.2
How could dialogue have improved HER-ES and the CSD/SDU engagement?
4.2.1
Effective dialogue requires there to be pre-agreed ground rules, which are designed to enable participants to have a safe, confidential and respectful environment to deliberate. These rules should encourage creative problemsolving and foster a culture of open deliberation. For example, at the first US House of Representatives Bipartisan Retreat, the ground rules were respect, fairness, openness, listening, and confidentiality.31 The principle reason why the related government departments did not support HER-ES is they did not believe that the engagement was useful, or could inform decision-making. It would appear that the HEC was set-up as a matter of expediency with many government departments resisting having to spend time engaging this body. Because of this resistance, few participants invested in the ground rules for dialogue and compromised the potential for productive and innovative deliberation. If community leaders had strengthened their communication skills and committed themselves to the ground rules for dialogue within the engagement, the tone and character of the engagement would have been much different, leaders could have recognized the benefits of public dialogue, and HER-ES could have been a more fruitful process. Civic Exchange has branded a specific set of skills that promotes good communication and dialogue by referring to them as “Sustainability Tools�. These include sending clear messages, listening actively, developing presentation skills, and organizing dynamic meetings. 32 Civic Exchange believes these tools can engender a paradigm shift in interpersonal relations, communications and conflict resolution.
4.2.2
An effective dialogue requires solid preparation and organization. First, the topic and objectives of the dialogue need to be unambiguous. A dialogue without firm parameters can drift and become muddled even though there must be flexibility in a deliberative experience. Robin Gregory and Ralph L.
See Mark Gerzon, Leading Beyond Borders: A Handbook for Global Citizens, p. 72, Copyright 2005 Mark Gerzon. 32 See Christine Loh, An Introduction to Sustainability Tools: Using effective public dialogue to improve government-civil sector relations, p.11-12, Civic Exchange (2002). 31
9
Keeney use a process called “setting the decision context” to clarify the topic and objectives.33 The decision context explicitly frames the topic and all the possible objectives and options that can be pursued so that participants agree to start the dialogue from the same place and with the same set of objectives and options. 34 Of course, if innovative options are uncovered, they may be added to the decision context. The decision context is intended to provide structure in a dialogue without preventing participants to step out of that frame and look for new solutions. The fundamental shortcoming of the CSD/SDU process was the design of the PEP was not properly aligned with the use of the outcome. It would have been clearer if the organizers were explicit that the PEP was meant to be deliberative only on SD’s application in Hong Kong in the three specific areas and that the SD concept was stated at the outset. Using a decision context within a dialogue in the next engagement effort by the SDU and CSD would allow them to frame the process directly and avoid a disconnect between the design of a PEP and the use of its results. 5.0
CONCLUSION Public engagement processes are a new phenomenon in Hong Kong governance. In the case of the CSD/SDU efforts, the public engagement’s shortcomings may be a result of the newness of the process, and could be ameliorated in the future. However, the weaknesses in HER-ES seem more serious. Whereas it could be assumed that the CSD and SDU are learning how to implement these processes with some trial and error, most governmental bodies involved in HER-ES do not seem interested in learning about public engagement at all. Whatever the course for public engagement processes in Hong Kong will be, dialogue is a useful and necessary tool for every aspect of public life. Dialogue, if implemented correctly, reveals a wealth of information concerning the values and aspirations of the community. If dialogue was embraced by the government in its interaction with the public, leaders could realize the value of engagement and approach it more openly in the future. In order to preserve Hong Kong’s station as a stable and powerful city, dialogue should be utilized to ensure that decision-making is approached critically and with an eye for innovation and consensus-building.
33
See “Creating Policy Alternatives Using Stakeholder Values,” Management Science, 40:8, 1036.
10