Hong Kong’s Air Pollution Control Ordinance

Introduction

TheAirPollutionControlOrdinance (APCO)1–whichcameintoforcein1983– istheprimarypieceoflegislationthatdealswiththemanagementofairpollutioninHongKong.2Thispaperprovidesanoverviewof theOrdinance,inordertostimulatediscussioninfourareason itseffectivenessasaninstrumentfordealingwithairpollutioninHongKong:

1. Is public health currently one of the overarching interests of the Ordinance?

Arguablyyes,byreadingtheLongTitleoftheOrdinancetogetherwiththedefinitionof ‘air pollution’ inSection2, acourt is likely to find that abating,prohibiting andcontrollingemissionsthatareprejudicial tohealth,isoneof themainobjectivesoftheOrdinance.

2. Is the health objective integrated into the operational aspects of the Ordinance?

Notconsistently.Controllingemissionsthatareprejudicialtohealthisa considerationin some, but not all, of the operational processes for managing air quality. Inparticular,prejudicetohealthisnotconsideredinestablishingAirControlZonesandAirQualityObjectives.

3. Is the Ordinance’s process adequate for setting air quality objectives?

No,itis explicitly subjectiveandcouldbemademorerobustbyexplicitreferenceinthe Ordinance to internationally respected standards and research and theDepartmentofHealth,whichcurrently,andoddly,hasnoremittobeinvolved.

4. Do the Ordinance’s procedures facilitate proper management of air pollution?

Not adequately. The powers provided by the Ordinance to the Government tomanageairpollutionarelimited.Moreimportantly,greaterattentioncouldbegiventotheelementsof theclassicmanagementcycleof continuousimprovement, suchas:

• Monitoring,• Reviewandamendment,• Timelinesandaccountabilityforperformance,and• Transparency.

2

1Cap.3112AsummaryofPartsandSectionsoftheAPCOcanbefoundonthelastpageofthispaper.

Scope of this paper

This reviewof theprovisionsof theAirPollutionControlOrdinance,isforinterestedparties,whomay notbefamiliar with thecomplexitiesof legal language.A full section‐by‐sectioncommentaryontheAPCO,writtenbyAntoniodaRoza,will bepublishedbyLexisNexis aspartoftheAnnotatedOrdinancesseriesinMarch2009.

Apart from some observations on the UK approach to pollution and the need to bringgreenhousegasemissionsintotherealmofpollutionreduction,itis beyondthescopeofthispapertoconsidercomprehensivereformofthelaw–whetherthewholelegislativeapproachtopollutioninHongKongshouldberebuiltwithapublichealthfoundation–thoughthis iswelloverdue.

This reviewislimitedtotheprovisionsoftheOrdinancethatdealwithoutdoorairpollution.TheAPCOhasnoexpressreferencetoindoorairpollutionoritscontrol,andthisreviewdoesnotcovertheasbestoscontrolregime,whichisalsocontainedintheAPCO.

Box1: ImportanttermsrelatingtotheAPCO

AdvisoryCouncilfortheEnvironment

A statutory council thatadvises the Hong Kong Governmentonmeasurestocombatpollutionandsustaintheenvironment.

AQO Air Quality Objectives, established by the Secretary for theEnvironment

ACZ AirControlZones,establishedbytheChiefExecutive

APCO AirPollutionControlOrdinance

EPD Environmental Protection Department, whose director isresponsibleforadministeringtheAPCO(theadministeringagencyisreferredtointheAPCOas‘TheAuthority’)

3

History of air pollution laws in Hong Kong

Historically not health-basedBox 2 summarizes the development of air pollution legislation in Hong Kong. With theexceptionofsomecontrols onsmokeunderthePublicHealth(Sanitation)Ordinanceof1935,the historical context for air pollution management was not so much public health butvisibility;specifically,toensurethatpilotswereabletonavigateaircraftsafelyinHongKong.ThecurrentAPCOisavestigeofthatpolicy.

Enforcementis predicatedonanuisance‐basedapproach3ratherthanthepublichealthfocusthatiscommontoalmostallotherjurisdictions.

Box2: Timeline of legislative developments on air pollution in HongKong

1935 PublicHealth (Sanitation)Ordinance – a singleprovisionrelevantto smokecontrol

1955 Air Navigation (Abatement of Smoke Nuisances) Ordinance – adopts anuisance‐basedapproach

1960 CleanAirOrdinance–perpetuatesthenuisance‐basedapproach

1983 Air Pollution ControlOrdinance (APCO) – perpetuates the nuisance‐basedapproach

1987 AirQualityObjectivesformulated

1991 APCOamendedtoincludemotorvehiclesandunleadedpetrol

1993 APCOamended to includeasbestos,useof technicalmemoranda,licensingand appeal, and penalty revisions. Definition of air pollution amended toincludehealtheffects.

2008 APCOamendedtoincluderegulationofsulphurdioxide,nitrogenoxidesandparticulatesfromelectricityworks

Health is the major concern in other jurisdictionsWorldwideresearchintotheadversehealtheffectsofairpollutionoverthelast50years hasfirmly aligned air pollution control with the protection of public health. In Hong Kong,however,thehealthelementwasgraftedontolegislationthatwasnotdirectedatprotectingpublichealth,butonlyaddressingairpollutionifitbecamea‘nuisance’.

Thelegacyof this history hasbeenareactionaryandfragmentedapproach toproblemsastheyemerge.ThepiecemealfashioninwhichtheamendmentsaremadehasledtocertaininconsistenciesandweaknessesintheOrdinance.

4

3 A ‘nuisance‐based’approachmeansthat airpollution isonly addressedwhen it causesimmediate discomfortthatmayormaynotbehealth‐related.Nuisance‐basedlegislationtendstobe reactive – it isonlytriggeredbyacomplaint orobjection. It doesnottakeaccountofthe diffuse,incremental, andlong‐termnature ofdamage tohealthfromairpollutionthatahealth‐basedapproachisbetterplacedtodealwith.

1. Is public health currently one of the overarching interests of the Ordinance?

TheintentoftheOrdinanceisfoundintheLongTitle(emphasisadded):

Tomakeprovisionforabating,prohibitingandcontrollingpollutionoftheatmosphereandformattersconnectedtherewith.

‘Pollutionoftheatmosphere’isnotdefinedbytheOrdinance;however,asimilarterm– ‘airpollution’–isdefinedins.2(againemphasisadded):

An emission of air pollutant which either alone or with another emission of airpollutant–

(a) Isprejudicialtohealth;(b) Isanuisance;(c) Imperils or is likely to imperil thesafetyof orotherwiseinterfereswiththe

normaloperationofaircraft;or(d) Isdeterminedtobeairpollutionunderatechnicalmemorandum.

Whilst the terms ‘pollution of the atmosphere’ and ‘air pollution’ are not identical, it isarguable the Courts may consider them equivalent for the purposes of interpreting theOrdinance.

Readingthetwotogethergivestheintent(amongstotherthings):

Toabate,prohibitandcontroltheemissionofpollutantsthatareprejudicialtohealth.

This thenbecomesoneof theobjectivesof theOrdinancebuttheremay stillbeissuestoconsider(seebelow).

However,theOrdinanceis unclearinitspurpose.TheDepartmentofHealthcurrentlyplaysnodirectoradvisory roleinsetting air qualitystandards.Theresponsibledepartment,theEnvironmentalProtectionDepartmenthasexpertiseinairpollutioncontrol,butnotinpublichealth.

5

2. Is the health objective integrated into the operational aspects of the Ordinance?

Ideally,all of theoperationalprovisions,processes andproceduresof theOrdinanceshouldbedirectedateffectingthepurposeof theOrdinance– i.e.todealwithemissionsprejudicialtohealth.

However,giventhatprejudicetohealthwasnottheoriginalmischiefthelawwasintendedtoaddress,and was tacked onto the pre‐existing legislation, it ishardly surprising thehealthemphasis is not as explicitly or thoroughly integrated in the operational aspects of theOrdinanceasitcouldbe.

Legislative gapsThemostimportantareaswheretheproceduresundertheOrdinancearenotinvariablyandexplicitlylinkedtotheintentintheLongTitleanddefinitionofairpollutionareasfollows:

• TheChiefExecutiveestablishingAirControlZones(ACZs).4• TheSecretaryfortheEnvironmentestablishingAirQualityObjectives(AQOs).5• The Secretary for the Environment issuing technical memoranda relating to the

developmentofAQOs.6

That leaves thequestionofwhether,despite theabsenceof explicitreference, theCourtswould find that, implicitly, thehealth objective of theOrdinanceshould inform all otherprocessesandprocedures.This is amoreambiguousissuethathasneverbeentestedintheCourts.

Can the Government ignore health effects?Onastrictreading,thereisnoobligationonthevariousstatutoryofficerstotakeaccountofthe prejudice to health in establishing and implementing the procedures outlined above.However,recentcaselawraisesdoubtsabouttheextenttowhichstatutoryofficerscanallowtheprocedurestoremainuntouchedbyhealthconcerns.Thejudge–MrJusticeHartmann–inthe2007caseof CleanAir Foundation Ltd&Another v The Government of the HKSAR7acceptedthatitisatleastarguablethattherighttolifeundertheBasicLaw8andtheBillofRights9imposesadutyontheGovernment to combatair pollution,andmoreimportantly,theInternationalCovenantonEconomic,SocialandCulturalRightsrequirestheprogressiveachievementofthehighestattainablestandardofhealth.10

6

4s.6(1)(allreferencestotheAPCOunlessstated)5s.7(1)6 ss. 2(d) and 7(1A). Note however that technical memoranda in other parts of the Ordinance are linkedspecificallytothehealthobjective.7Unreported,HCAL35/20078Article289Article210Article12

3. Is the Ordinance’s process adequate for setting air quality objectives?

Currently,theSecretaryfortheEnvironmentimplementstheAPCObysettingAQOs.Logically,theAQOsshouldprotecthealth(althoughtheOrdinancedoesnotexplicitlymakethislink).

Subjective processThecriterionfordeterminingtheAQOsis‘theopinionoftheSecretary…inordertopromotetheconservationandbestuseofair…inthepublicinterest’.11 Thisisa vaguecriterionthatleavesconsiderableroomforthedevelopmentofAQOsina mannerthatisinconsistentwiththehealthpurposeof theOrdinance.AmoreexplicitlinkbetweentheSecretary’s discretionand theobjectivetoprevent prejudicetohealthwouldserveto facilitateamore scientificprocessinthedevelopmentofAQOs.

External scrutinyInordertoensurethat thehealthpurposeisfulfilled asfaraspossible,theopinionof theSecretary for the Environment in setting AQOscould bemoderated by objectiveexternalscrutiny,suchas:

• ThemostrecentguidelinesissuedbytheWorldHealthOrganization;• Themostrecentresearchonairpollutionscienceandhealth;• TheadviceoftheAdvisoryCouncilonEnvironment;and• TheadviceoftheDepartmentofHealth

7

11s.7(2)–emphasisadded.

4. Do the Ordinance’s procedures facilitate proper air quality management?

‘Management’ implies acycleof continuous improvement– doing, monitoring, reviewing,andupdatingonthebasis of review– as wellasmechanismstoincentivizeachievementofthemanagementobjectives(orpenalizefailuretoachievethem).

Inthisinstance‘doing’referstodevisingandimplementingpollutioncontrolmeasures.

Missing tools of managementSomeofthesecriticalmanagementelementsaremissingfromtheOrdinance.Forexample:

(a) Monitoringandpublishingofrelevantdata,includinghealthimpacts,(b) Regular review and updating of the Ordinance and its procedures (including the

AQOs),and(c) Effectivedrivers to ensureachievementof thehealth objective, accountability and

transparency.TheseweaknessesmaylimittheabilityoftheEPDtobettermanageairqualityinHongKong.

(a) No legal requirement for monitoring

Thepurposeofmonitoringistodeterminewhetherthehealthandotherobjectives arebeingmet–‘whatis notmeasuredisnotmanaged’.However,thereisnoprovisionintheOrdinancebywhichtheGovernmentisrequiredtomonitorairpollutioninHongKongalthoughtheEPDcarriesoutextensivemonitoringthroughanetworkofairpollutionmonitoringstations,andmakes the datapublicly available via itswebsite.What hasbeen lacking in Hong Kong iscontinuousmonitoringofthehealthimpactsofairpollutionbytheauthorities.Thequestiontoconsider iswhetherthereshouldbealegalrequirement fortheGovernmenttomonitorboth air pollution and its health impacts,andwhether thepublic shouldhaveastatutory‘righttoknow’.

8

(b) No legal requirement for review and update

Monitoring and review go hand‐in‐hand as apartof themanagementcycle. Although theSecretaryfortheEnvironmentis requiredtoestablishAQOs12andalthoughtheSecretaryhasthe power toamendthemfromtimetotime,13onastrict readingofSection7, thereisnorequirementtorevieworupdatetheAQOsandnotimeframeforreview.14

Outdated provisionsAsaconsequenceoftheweakreviewprovisions,theAQOsareoutdated.Theyhavenotbeenamendedsincetheirestablishmentin1987,duringwhichtimethelinksbetweenpublichealthandairqualityhavebecomemuchbetterunderstood.TheGovernmentishowevercurrentlyconductinga reviewandthis isobviouslyanimportanttimealsoraisetheinadequacies of theAPCO.Similarly,finesforbreachoflicenceconditionshavenotbeenupdatedsince1993andfeesforlicencessince2000.

(c) Accountability, transparency and drivers for achievement

No requirement to achieve AQOsUndertheAPCO,itisnotmandatory fortheGovernmenttosetAirControlZonesortoachievetheAQOs.TheSecretaryforEnvironmentmaygivedirectionstotheEPDabouthow the objectives may be achieved, but is not made responsible for theirachievement.15 There are no time limits for achievement – instead, they are to beachieved‘assoonasisreasonablypracticable’,anundefinedperiodoftime.16

No rights of private actionThere isno provision forprivate rightsof actionagainst licenseeswhodonot complywith theOrdinance, nor are there anycivil rightstocomplement thecriminal liabilityattachedtobreachoflicenceconditions17.

Short time period for complaintsThereisalimitedtimeperiodforbringingprosecutionsagainstacontinuingoffence–6months.18Whythereis a needtolimitthetimeforbringingaprosecutionisunclearandreducesthedeterrenteffectofthecriminalprovisions.

No publication of directionsTheSecretaryforEnvironmentisempowered–withnorequirementtoconsultwiththeAdvisoryCouncilontheEnvironment– togivetheEPDdirectionsinrespectof howitshouldexerciseitspowers undertheOrdinance.19TheSecretaryisnotrequiredtomakepublicanysuchdirections,whichcontrastswithothersectionsintheAPCO,wherebytheSecretaryisrequiredtopublishdetailsofmethodsandstandardsheapproves.20

9

12s.7(1)13s.7(3)14 However, see JusticeHartmann’scommentsinCleanAir FoundationLtd.&Another v The GovernmentoftheHKSAR (unrep. HCAL35/2007)where he consideredthissectionmakes‘directprovisionfor theSecretaryfor theEnvironment,inconsultationwithastatutorybody,notonlytointroduceairqualityobjectivesbuttoupdatethemwhenevernecessary’.15s.8(3)16s.8(2)17Aprivate rightofaction,suchasthatfoundins.46oftheSecuritiesandFuturesOrdinance,couldenhancethedeterrenteffectof the APCOandfacilitate itsenforcement. Inother jurisdictions, legal action inrelation toairpollutiontendstoproceedmorebyprivatelawsuitsthanjudicialreviewagainstthegovernment.18s.4619s.8(3)20e.g.s.4

International Developments

Althoughitisbeyondthescopeofthispapertodiscussthebroaderquestionofwide‐rangingreformofairqualitylegislation,twointernationaldevelopmentsworthmentioningare:

(a) The UK’s consolidated approach to pollution managementWhenitcame intoeffectin1983,theAPCOmarkedadivergencefromairpollutioncontrolinthe UK,which adopted a consolidated approach to all forms of pollution in its Control ofPollutionAct(1974),andwhichcontinuedunder the EnvironmentAct(1995),whilstinHongKong, the pollution law is split over a number of disparate pieces of legislation.21Consequently, there is potential overlap between the APCO and other ordinances22 onenvironmental issues and it is unclearwhich ordinance takes precedence in the event ofconflict.23Thislackofclaritystrengthenstheargumentforaconsolidatedlegislativeapproachtopollution,asfoundintheUK.

(b) Climate change – an emerging pollution issueAs the momentum for action on climate change accelerates, greenhouse gases areincreasingly being seen as pollutants that must be brought into a policy framework ofpollutionmanagement.AsChinaisasignatorytotheUnitedNationsFrameworkConventionon Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, these treaties bind Hong Kong. The KyotoProtocoldeals with six greenhouse gases (including carbondioxide,methane, andnitrousoxide)anddespitecomingintoforcein2005,itisnotreferredtoinanyprimaryorsubsidiaryairpollutionlegislationinHongKong.This issuewillhavetobeaddressedatsomestage butisbeyondtheambitofthisreview.

Acknowledgements & further readingCivicExchangewouldliketothankADMCapitalFoundationforfundingthispaper.TheviewsexpressedinthispaperarenotnecessarilytheviewsofADMCapitalFoundation.

ThispapercanbedownloadedfromtheCivicExchangewebsiteat:www.civic‐exchange.org/eng/upload/files/200902APCOs.pdf

This paperwaswrittenby Andrew Lawson,basedon a review of the APCO byAntonio daRoza,Barrister‐at‐law,andResearchFellowattheUniversityofHongKong.ThisreviewcanbedownloadedfromCivicExchange’swebsiteat:www.civic‐exchange.org/eng/upload/files/200902APCO.pdf

AntoniodaRozahaspreparedafullyannotatedversionoftheAPCO,whichwillbepublishedin2009byLexisNexis.www.lexisnexis.com.hk

LayoutbyJonasChau.

10

21 IncludingtheWaste DisposalOrdinance (Cap354),WaterPollutionControlOrdinance (Cap358).NoiseControlOrdinance (Cap400),Ozone Layer ProtectionOrdinance (Cap 403), and the Environmental Impact AssessmentOrdinance(Cap499)22e.g.EnvironmentalImpactAssessmentOrdinance(Cap.499)23Unders. 49ofthe APCO, provisionsof theAPCOare tobe regardedasadditionalto, ratherthanoverriding,provisionsofotherordinances.

Box3: TheAirPollutionControlOrdinance: asummaryofParts&SectionsPartI(Sections1–5)

Preliminary– Contains the interpretation (s.2) andapplicationprovisions,andestablishestheairpollutioncontrolAuthority.

PartII(Sections6–8)

Air ControlZones and AirQuality Objectives – providesforaircontrolzones(s.6)andairqualityobjectives (s.7).A ‘catch‐all’forairpollution–whatisnotdealtwithbylicensingorasbestoscontrolmustfallunderairqualityobjectives.

PartIII(Sections9–10)

ControlofAirPollution– dealswiththecontrol of airpollutionby way of technical memoranda (s. 9) and air pollutionabatementnotices(s.10).

PartIV(Sections11–26A)

Specified Processes and the Licensing of Premises – specifiedprocessesaresetoutinSchedule1. Thepreventionofnoxiousor offensive emissions is provided for in s. 12, and therequirementtobelicensedforsuchprocessesissetoutins.13,failureforwhichisacriminaloffence.

PartIVA(Sections26B–26F)

Unleaded PetrolandControl of theEmissionofAir PollutantsfromMotorVehicles–thisParthasbeenrepealedinitsentirety.

PartIVB(Sections26G–26N)

Specified Licences – concerns licences for electricity works(referredtoasspecified licencesunder s.2). Forsuchlicences,there is a quantity of emission allowances allocated under s.26G,breachofwhichisacriminaloffence.

PartV(Sections27–30B)

Enforcement – contains thepowers of enforcement, includingthe Authority’s powers toobtain information,powers of entryand inspection, power to require modification in respect oflicensedpremises,offenceprovisionsfor failing to comply withtheAuthorityandforbreachoftermsofalicence.

PartVI(Sections31–36)

Appeals – concerns appeals against the decisions of theAuthority, and sets out the establishment, composition andjurisdictionoftheAppealBoard.

PartVII(Sections37–50)

Miscellaneous–providesformiscellaneousmatterssuchas theestablishmentofCodesofPracticeunders.37,thepoweroftheSecretaryfortheEnvironmenttocreateregulations unders.43,time limitations for laying information in respect of offencesundertheOrdinanceunder s. 46, thesupplementarynatureoftheprovisionsoftheAPCOunders.49,andsoon.

PartVIII(Sections51–68)

Control of Environmental Asbestos – the asbestos controlregime.

PartIX(Sections69–80)

AsbestosControlWorks–theasbestoscontrolregime.

11

12

Room 701, Hoseinee House69 Wyndham StreetCentral, Hong Kong

Tel: (852) 2893 0213Fax: (852) 3105 9713

www.civic-exchange.org