Engagement with partners key to HK’s success in GBA

The GuangdongHong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area plan announced on Monday by the State Council ought to be taken positively because the opportunities are clearly there for all three places — Hong Kong, Macao and Guangdong.

Broadly, the plan calls for the region to push innovation, technology, green development, as well as leveraging and capitalizing on the strengths of each place for the greater benefit of all. Enthusiasts in Hong Kong see what can be done and want to seize the moment.

The plan should also be seen within the context of China’s overall policies to promote and invest in research and development, achieve “Beautiful China” and national rejuvenation, and accomplish the next stage of modernization from now until 2022 and on to 2035.

If there is one aspect that could be more clearly stressed in articulating the Bay Area plan, it is that advancement in innovation and technology is not an end in itself but is the means to create a new urban liveability that is backed by a vibrant green economy based on much higher levels of resource efficiency and public health that will enable the region to be sustainable and resilient in the face of fast-paced megachallenges.

These challenges include replacing “old economy” production with “new economy” activities rooted in the rise of urbanization, as well as the need for resource efficiency and low- or zeroemissions solutions. In other words, a large part of the new economy is about innovation and technology that are environmentally related.

Ground-zero for export production take-off in the 1980s took place in the Pearl River Delta with Hong Kong as a key player. Forty years later, the same region is envisioned to lead a new phase of green development to move China from being the “world’s factory” to high-value production and services.

“Smart” cities and “smart” living are by definition resource efficient and environmentally sustainable. They must also be healthy for people and biodiversity. As humans are one species out of many, being “smart” is to recognize that and ensure our highly dense urban areas are infused with designs, materials, buildings and structures that function like organisms that are efficient in their use of resources — such as energy and water — and can deal with waste so there is minimal pollution and maximal recycling.

To achieve these outcomes, the region needs coordinated policies that can The author is former under secretary for the environment and legislative councilor. She is the chief development strategist, Institute for the Environment, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. drive the public and private sectors to take the right forward-looking actions. Thus, the authorities have to tighten and synchronize all kinds of regulations and codes of the three regions related to energy, water, buildings, construction, vehicles and equipment.

Success will require the Bay Area to set environmental standards that are ahead of the national standards. California became the undisputed leader in air quality regulation and set the pace for a slew of innovations and technologies that were commercially valuable through imposing the toughest standards. Guangdong understands this as it is a leader in e-mobility in implementing e-buses and e-taxis.

Hong Kong’s own drive for better air quality needs to be reinvigorated. The government should make sure it has strong capability in air quality science so it can base policies on evidence. Its desire to promote “big data and data analytics” can be applied to air quality both at the government, as well as community, levels. Air quality is where Hong Kong has the strongest foundation and partnerships in science, regulation and cross-boundary experience to adopt technology that can lead to policy, regulatory and enforcement innovation.

Hong Kong’s hesitation to lead is related to the unwillingness by bureaucrats to amend laws because it’s a hassle to persuade vested interests and get amendments through a fractious legislature. This lazy attitude will not do.

Hong Kong’s leadership in controlling shipping emissions between 2012 and 2015 helped change national policy; and more recently, Hong Kong’s drone technology can be used to “sniff” emissions from ships as they enter territorial waters. The next step is for the regional authorities to use the technology for enforcement, which is on the cards.

Hong Kong also has other areas of innovation and technical prowess that should be showcased regionally and nationally. The Bay Area plan calls for flood prevention and mitigation measures. This is an area where Hong Kong has done a good job over the past two decades. In addition, Hong Kong manages hill slopes well. There is a lot of innovation and technology in getting those projects done. There are academics, professionals and government officials in these areas in Hong Kong who are top-notch. They can help the region become more climate-resilient and safe, and that knowledge is useful for other places too, and the private sector can capitalize on it commercially.

There are sceptics of the Bay Area plan. Some see it as a distraction that will not amount to much for Hong Kong — they argue Hong Kong should focus on solving its own problems. Others fear Hong Kong will be swallowed up by a bigger entity. Such parochialism is stagnating and self-defeatist.

Hong Kong needs to do more than one thing at a time. While it addresses local problems, there are issues that need a regional approach, such as with the environment. As for being overwhelmed and overtaken, there is in fact a need for Hong Kong to engage with its immediate neighborhood otherwise it will be by-passed. The opportunity is there. Positive outcomes greatly depend on us embracing a more forthcoming attitude and rejecting a debilitating tendency by certain sectors to politicize practical issues.

Ignoring the neighborhood will not help; and disengagement arising from fear will lead to naught. The government’s role is to provide the political and policy framework for governmentto-government collaboration, as well as engage the private sector and community to play their roles.

The difference between Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland is our ability to work with all kinds of non-government stakeholders for the greater good. For the government, this is the kind of politics that is welcomed. Let’s call this process “purposeful engagement” and get on with it.