Monitoring and auditing: after the decision - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 200

7.3.4 The case of Hong Kong
In Hong Kong, a systematic, comprehensive environmental monitoring and auditing
system was introduced in 1990 for major projects. A major impetus for action was the
construction of the new $20-billion airport at Chap Lap Kok, which included the
construction of not only the airport island, but also a railway, highways and crossings and
a major Kowloon reclamation project. The environmental monitoring and audit manual
includes three stages of an event-action plan: (1) trigger level, to provide an early
warning; (2) action level, at which action is to be taken before an upper limit of impacts
is reached and (3) target level, beyond which a predetermined plan response is initiated to
avoid or rectify any problems. The approach does build monitoring much more into
project decision-making, requiring proponents to agree monitoring and audit protocols
and event-action plans in advance; however, enforcement has been problematic (Au &
Sanvícens 1996).
Since April 1998 there have been EIA regulations in force which stipulate in detail
when and how environmental monitoring and auditing should be done (EPD 1997, 1998).
The regulations normally result in permit conditions relating to project approval. This has
provided a statutory basis for follow-up work, and offences carry stiff penalties (up to
$250,000, and six months imprisonment). A recent and fascinating innovation in the
Hong Kong system is the use of the Internet for monitoring the effects of large projects
and of compliance with the permit conditions. Under procedures introduced since 2000
major projects must set up a monitoring website (see: http://www.info.gov.hk/epd/eia).
Some sites include webcams focused on parts of the project. There is public access to the
websites, and concerned members of the public can report their views on project
performance back to both the government and the developer (Hui & Ho 2002). Is this the
shape of things to come?
7.3.5 UK experience
Although monitoring is not a mandatory requirement under UK EIA regulations, there is
monitoring activity. A research study at Oxford Brookes University (see Frost 1997,
Glasson 1994) has sought to provide an initial estimate of the extent of such activity
using a “contents analysis” and a “practice analysis”. The contents analysis of references
to monitoring intentions uses a representative sample of almost 700 EISs and summaries
of EISs (taken from the Institute of Environmental Assessment's Digest of Environmental
Statements ) (IEA 1993). For some EISs there was a clearly indicated monitoring section;
for others, monitoring was covered in sections related to mitigation. In several cases there
were generic monitoring proposals with, for example, a proposal to check that contractors
are in compliance with contract specifications. Overall, approximately 30 per cent of the
cases included at least one reference to impact monitoring. The maximum number of
monitoring types was six, suggesting that impact monitoring is unlikely to be
approaching comprehensiveness in even a select few cases. Table 7.1 shows the types of
monitoring in EISs. Water quality monitoring was more frequently cited than air quality
monitoring. Point of origin monitoring of air and aqueous emissions was also frequently
cited. There was only very limited reference to the monitoring of non-biophysical (i.e.
socio-economic) impacts. The type of monitoring varied between project types. For