Environmental education, community mobilization and sustainable development in Hong Kong: a comparative perspective

This article was downloaded by: [University of Stellenbosch]On: 06 October 2014, At: 19:57Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Sustainable Development &World EcologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsdw20

Environmental education, community mobilization andsustainable development in Hong Kong: a comparativeperspectivePeter Hills aa The Centre of Urban Planning and Environmental Management, The University of HongKong , Hong Kong SAR, ChinaPublished online: 02 Jun 2009.

To cite this article: Peter Hills (2001) Environmental education, community mobilization and sustainable development inHong Kong: a comparative perspective, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 8:2, 137-154, DOI:10.1080/13504500109470071

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504500109470071

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsdw20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13504500109470071

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504500109470071

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Int.J. Sustain. Deu. World Ecol. 8 (2001) 137-154

Environmental education, community mobilization and sustainable development in Hong Kong: a comparative perspective

Peter Hills

The Centre of Urban Planning and Environmental Management, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

Key words: Environmental education, community mobilization, Hong Kong, sustainable development

SUMMARY This paper focuses on efforts to promote environmental education and community mobilization around environmental issues in Hong Kong. It is primarily concerned with efforts directed at the broader community (i.e. the population as a whole) rather than with environmental education through formal school and college curricula. The paper draws on a recently completed study commissioned by the Environmental Campaign Committee, the principal source of financial support for such efforts undertaken by environmental NGOs, community groups and educational institutions in Hong Kong. The study examined how and to what effect the Committee had used its financial resources between 1994-1999. It also examined international experience with a view to recommending changes in the overall approach to environmental education and community mobilization initiatives and their funding in Hong Kong.

The paper suggests that the existing approach to community-wide environmental education and its funding in Hong Kong have suffered from various weaknesses, most notably the absence of an integrated and goal-oriented strategy, an over-reliance on a ‘top-down’ campaign-based approach, a failure to establish explicit linkages with the concept of sustainable development and to ground initiatives at the local neighbourhood and community levels, and a preoccupation with the financial inputs provided to support this work at the expense of effective monitoring and auditing of project outputs and benefits.

INTRODUCTION This paper focuses on the promotion and funding of community-wide environmental education initiatives in Hong Kong, matters which are currently under review by a government- appointed body, the Environmental Campaign Committee, which is responsible for both the c e ordination of such activities and for much of

their funding. The paper draws on the findings of a recently completed study (Environmental Campaign Committee, 2000) undertaken by the author and a team based at the University of Hong Kong’s Centre of Urban Planning and Environmental Management. T h e paper addresses issues of particular concern in the Hong

Correspondence: Peter Hills, The Centre of Urban Planning and Environmental Management, The University of Hong Kong, Pukfulam Road, Hong Kong SAR. China. e-mail [email protected]

137

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:57

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Environmental education and sustainable development HiUs

Kong context but also seeks to provide a broader international perspective on contemporary developments in the field of community-wide environmental education and the funding mechanisms in place to support such initiatives. We use this international experience to benchmark the principal features of Hong Kong’s current approach.

The paper addresses three sets of questions. First, how has Hong Kong approached the task of community-wide environmental education, and how effective have these efforts been? Second, what are the basic features of evolving international practice in this field and what kinds of funding systems have been established to support such efforts? Third, what can Hong Kong learn from international practice and how might its own approach be modified to enhance the effectiveness of community-wide environmental education, specifically with regard to developing greater public understanding of sustainable development?

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT The transition to a sustainable future necessitates a wide variety of changes in the way society operates, both at the macro-level and in terms of individual attitudes and behaviour (IUCN/ UNEP/WWF, 1991; WCED, 1987). Environmental education is essential to enhance levels of awareness and understanding of the key issues at the core of the sustainability imperative (the ‘cognitive’ dimension), promote attitude change (the ‘ethical’ dimension), and mod* patterns of behaviour (the ‘action’ dimension) (European Commission, 1997).

Chapter 36 of Agenda 21 (UN, 1993), which is devoted to issues of education, training and public awareness, comments that:

Education is critical for promoting sustainable development and improving the capacity of the people to address environment and development issues. . . . Both formal and non-formal education are indispensable to changing people’s attitudes so that they have the capacity to assess and address their sustainable development concerns. It is also critical for achieving environmental and ethical awareness, values and attitudes, skills and behaviour consistent with sustainable development and for effective public participation in decision-making.

Much of the literature in the field of environmental education relates to its role and develop ment within the formal education system (European Commission, 1997; OECD, 1995; Palmer, 1998; Waddington, 1995). This is also the case in Hong Kong (see e.g. Ho, 1999; Wong and Stimpson, 1994; Yeung, 1995). The extension of environmental education efforts into the broader community has, however, attracted increasing international attention in recent years, largely in response to growing recognition that if it is to assist the transition to sustainable development it must be seen as a lifelong project (Filho, 1997), involving both formal and non- formal educational experiences (Smith, 1999). In Hong Kong, on the other hand, the promotion of environmental education on a community- wide basis and the mobilization of the community around the environment as a key quality of life issue have received relatively limited research attention even though such efforts have been ongoing for more than ten years (see Hills and Chan, 1997).

The evolution of environmental education has been described in terms of four stages (IUCN/ UNEP/WWF, 1991):

Reactive: providing particular products and programmes in response to limited demand. Education aims at reducing ecological ignorance and is often initiated by isolated individuals, specialists, voluntary organizations, or the information/community relations/education units of government agencies.

Receptive: in which organizations include environmental objectives in their policies and planning. Objectives emphasize changing knowledge and values. School curriculum development bodies become involved but programmes are implemented without reference to work elsewhere in the education field.

Constructive: in which programmes and objectives are more thoroughly implemented. There is community participation and objectives are oriented towards sustainable living. There is wide dissemination of developments, links are made across sectors.

Arwlctive: in which the culture of all organizations is defined in terms of ecologically sustainable living supported by comprehensive, lifelong environmental learning integrated within education systems, industry, social organizations/neighbourhood groups and government.

138 International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:57

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Environmental education and sustainable development H i k

This paper demonstrates that Hong Kong is still at an early stage in the evolutionary process described above and that fundamental obstacles must be overcome if it is to progress to the ‘constructive’ and ‘pro-active’ stages.

In the following section of the paper we briefly overview the contextual setting of the paper, focusing on the Hong Kong environment, government’s response to sustainability concerns, and public attitudes to the environment. The paper then moves on to overview the basic features of current environmental education and community mobilization efforts in Hong Kong, how these are funded and to what effect.

We then turn our attention to approaches adopted in Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, countries that reflect different types of national development profiles and environmental priorities, and which have recently launched major new national initiatives in the field of environmental education linked to the principles of sustainable development. Having identified the key characteristics of the approaches adopted in these three countries we then proceed to benchmark Hong Kong’s current approach against those adopted elsewhere and identify possible areas of improvement and change.

THE HONG KONG ENVIRONMENT The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) is located on the eastern side of the Pearl River Estuary in southern China, adjoining Guangdong Province. The HKSAR extends over an area of approximately 1100 km‘ and has a population of 7 million. The Hong Kong economy is dominated by the service sector, most of its manufacturing industry having relocated to Guangdong Province, where land and labour costs are much lower. After more than 20 years of almost uninterrupted growth, Hong Kong’s GDP contracted by 5.1% in 1998 as a result of the Asian financial crisis, returning only to positive growth in the latter part of 1999. Nonetheless, GDP per capita still amounted to US$24 900 in 1998, second only to Japan in Asia. Hong Kong is the eighth-largest trading entity in the world and its port and airport are amongst the busiest in the world (Government of the HKSAR, 1999a).

Hong Kong’s environmental problems have

been extensively documented in the literature (see e.g. Environmental Protection Department, 1999; Hills and Barron, 1997; Liu and Hills, 1998; Wong and Man, 1999). The pressures on the Hong Kong environment are acute resulting in poor air quality, marine pollution, widespread noise pollution, and an increasingly serious solid waste disposal problem. Of these problems, air quality concerns have recently risen to the top of the political agenda, largely as a result of Hong Kong’s attempts to re-invent itself as Asia’s ‘world city’ (Commission on Strategic Development, 2000, Loh, 1999; Tung, 1999). A series of well- publicized air pollution episodes since early 1998 have impacted on the SAR’s potential attractiveness and competitiveness as an international centre for business and tourism, and an aspiring ‘world city’.

These episodes have involved elevated levels of respirable particulates, oxides of nitrogen and ozone. The respirable particulate problem is especially serious and in part reflects the impact of emissions from the large diesel road vehicle fleet in Hong Kong but is also due to transboundary air pollution from neighbouring Guangdong Province (Barron and Steinbrecher, 1999).

Air pollution has captured the attention of the government, the community and, perhaps most significantly, business leaders because it is so obvious to all and has demonstrable health impacts (Wong et al., 1999). This has produced a situation which only a few years ago was almost inconceivable. For the first time, there appears to be broadly-based community support for government initiatives requiring light diesel vehicles (e.g. taxis and minibuses) to switch from diesel to liquified petroleum gas (LPG) and to provide financial subsidies to facilitate this process. Other measures are being progressively introduced in the year 2000, including the use of specially imported ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel by the major bus companies, and higher fines for smoky vehicles (Environment and Food Bureau, 2000).

While many of Hong Kong’s environmental problems are rooted in local conditions, the impact of transboundary air and water pollution from Guangdong Province has been growing in significance (Hills etal., 1998; Liu and Hills, 1998) and has likewise attracted increased political atten tion.

International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 139

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:57

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Environmental education and sustainable deuelopment H i h

The SAR’s Chief Executive, Mr Tung Chee Wah, acknowledged in his 1999 Annual Policy Address (Tung, 1999) that:

Hong Kong cannot possibly solve all its environmental problems single-handedly. We need to work closely with the Mainland authorities. . . . We also need the cooperation of our neighbours, for example to protect our air and water quality.

Mr Tung also announced that Hong Kong and Guangdong Province would undertake a joint study on regional air quality to be completed by early 2001 and would cany out a study of the feasibility of adopting common standards for diesel fuel. In addition, he indicated that a Joint Working Group on Sustainable Development and Environmental Protection would also be estab lished. This Working Group held its first meeting in June 2000.

Government’s response to Hong Kong’s ‘air quality crisis’ are symptomatic of some major weaknesses in the SAR’s approach to environmental policy and sustainability issues (Hills and Barron, 1997), which remains somewhat fragmented and confused. Hong Kong has not formally adopted Agenda 21 as the basis for the formulation of a policy framework on sustainable development. Instead, in 1997 the government commissioned a 30-month consultancy study entitled ‘Sustainable Development for the 21st Century’, which is due to be completed in mid- 2000. The principal objective of the study, which is managed by the government’s Planning Department is to develop a ‘decision-support tool’ to assist policy makers to incorporate the concept of sustainability into Hong Kong’s future development by providing a mechanism to test the sustainability implications of specific projects and policy options (Government of the HKSAR, 1999b).

However, while a definition of sustainable development has been proposed, and guiding principles and sustainability indicators defined, no attempt has been made to establish what sustainability means for the various policy sectors involved or how the objective of sustainability is to be met. The contradictions inherent in such an approach are obvious. More significantly from the viewpoint of the present paper, the SUSDEV21 Second Stage Public Consultation document issued in October 1999 (Government of the HKSAR, 1999b) makes no reference to

environmental education at all. The publicity pamphlet issued simultaneously by the Planning Department, (1999) encourages everyone to:

. . . . enhance your awareness and understanding of sustainable development to better prepare yourself to take up the challenges of the 21st century.

However, it says little about how the ordinary person is expected to do this. There are references to being a ‘green’ consumer, an ‘energy efficient’ user and ‘friend’ of the environment, a ‘contributor’ to health and social welfare, and an ‘asset’ to the economy but these vague generalizations are unsupported by useful information designed to enhance awareness and understanding of the concept or about the specific, positive behavioural changes that are required. Not surprisingly, SUSDEV21 has attracted little public interest.

SUSDEV21 is a missed opportunity to embed the principles of sustainable development in government policy making and within the community at large. But again this is symptomatic of a larger problem. Hong Kong seems unable, or unwilling, to address sustainability issues in a direct and unambiguous manner. The recently published report of the Commission on Strategic Development (2000) again reveals confused thinking about the nature of development itself. The report implies that sustainable development should be promoted by ’supporting initiatives’ that are somehow outside the mainstream of the development process itself. Greater weight appears to be given to achieving high levels of economic prosperity and there is considerable evidence to suggest that a majority among the local community broadly endorse such priorities.

For example, in the public consultation processes associated with SUSDEV21, feedback on the guiding principles to be adopted for sustainable development in Hong Kong and the indicator set to be used to audit these principles clearly favoured economic and livelihood considerations. Furthermore, the regular public surveys undertaken by the Government’s Home Affairs Bureau have indicated that the overwhelming majority of local residents typically rate economic and social problems as being far more important and serious than those concerning the environment, although interestingly the most recent survey carried out in May 2000 revealed that for the first time a significantly higher


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:57

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Environmental education and sustainable development HiUS

proportion of respondents identified the environment as a serious problem (Home AfFairs Bureau, 2000). The timing of the survey, however, coincided with a high-profile government initiative to tackle the air quality problem (Environment and Food Bureau, 2000), several pollution episodes which saw the local Air Pollution Index (API) rise to record levels, and unprecedented media coverage.

Although social surveys focusing solely on environmental issues, such as those carried out on behalf of the Environmental Campaign Committee itself (Environmental Campaign Committee, 1998) suggest a significant improvement in overall levels of public awareness of and concern about environmental issues, there clearly remains considerable ambiguity on the part of the community as regards the relative significance of the environment when compared to the state of the economy or issues such as education and health care. In such a context, it is perhaps inevitable that efforts to promote community- wide environmental education in Hong Kong have also proved problematic.

COMMUNITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION IN HONG KONG A campaign-based approach The organization primarily responsible for both the promotion and funding of environmental education and community mobilization efforts in Hong Kong is known as the Environmental Campaign Committee (ECC) . The Committee was established in 1990. Its members, who are drawn from local environmental NGOs, community groups, the business community, government agencies and academia, are appointed by the SAR’s Chief Executive. The Committee receives administrative support from the Environmental Protection Department of the SAR Government.

The ECC’s main objective is ‘to promote public awareness of environmental issues and to encourage and mobilize people from all walks of life to contribute towards a better environment’ (Environmental Campaign Committee, 199’7) .Its terms of reference are to:

(1) Promote awareness of environmental issues;

Review the impact and effectiveness of publicity and educational programmes on such issues;

Advise the government on community environmental education issues;

Mobilize and manage resources for the purposes of promoting environmental awareness in the SAR;

Encourage and co-ordinate publicity activities; and,

Plan and manage activities related to the United Nation’s World Environment Day (June 5 ) and the SAR’s annual Environ- mental Protection Festival which takes place in November and December.

The Committee’s title, and in particular the reference to the concept of the ‘campaign’ is consistent with a longestablished approach to community education and awareness-building in Hong Kong. The concept of the campaign has been employed by the government - both colonial and postcolonial - to address issues associated with number of areas of public policy, although the impacts of such an approach appear to have been little studied. Davies and Roberts (1990) observed that:

Periodically the Hong Kong Government mounts campaigns designed to heighten public awareness of a policy, or of some perceived problem in society that is felt to be in need of correction. These campaigns may run for a long time and be very conspicuous, leading to the establishment of permanent advisory bodies and committees. Campaigns such as the Fight Crime Campaign, the Anti-Corruption Campaign, the Anti-Litter campaign . . . . will receive extensive publicity on hoardings, in the press, and on radio and television.

Other campaigns are mounted on a seasonal basis (e.g. against stagnant water and mosquitoes), while others are targeted at specific groups (e.g. construction workers and site safety).

Davies and Roberts (1990) argued that such campaigns are a reflection of the administration’s paternalistic attitude coupled with a strong emphasis on the educational role of government which itself derives from the Confucian cultural tradition. The postcolonial period has seen a continuation and, indeed, an intensification of this approach to community mobilization, which


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:57

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Environmental education and sustainabk? he lopment Hills

also has a long tradition in the People’s Republic of China, and elsewhere in Asia.

It has several important characteristics. First, not only is it governmentdriven in a ‘topdown’ manner, but is typically underpinned by contributions from what can be termed the elite of society (i.e., those appointed to serve on the committees and advisory bodies associated with specific campaigns). Second, it is not consensus- driven as no attempt is made to canvas public opinion on the issues to be addressed or the manner in which they are to be tackled. Third, it is neither participatory nor empowering. The emphasis is on conveying a message to the community and the community is assumed to be motivated to respond positively, in attitude and behaviour, because to do so is in the interests of the individual or society at large.

Because such campaigns are intended to reach a significant proportion of the local community, the language in which they are phrased tends to be simplistic and direct, and often based on implied threats to individual or societal well-being (for example, to health or family stability). Such campaigns often tend to focus on the impacts of negative attitudinal or behavioural traits rather than reinforcing positive actions. Furthermore, it is not always clear what positive actions ordinary citizens can take in response to some of the issues highlighted in campaigns, as for example, with industrial pollution. In the past, it appears that elements of media campaigns launched by the Environmental Protection Department have been targeted not so much at the community but at other parts of government as a means of securing additional resources to promote environmental protection efforts.

There appears to be no mechanism to ensure that campaigns launched by different departments are effectively integrated, even if these are linked to broader concerns such as environmental quality, health and sustainable development. Campaigns may even be curtailed if they appear to conflict with the interests of influential groups. One example concerns a series of powerful television APIs (announcements of public interest) about environmental problems which were broadcast in the early 1990s. These attracted adverse comment from sections of the tourism lobby which argued that they might affect the image of the city as a tourist destination. No

government media campaigns of a similar nature have been mounted since.

Campaigns often fail to provide an adequate and meaningful explanation of the causes of the problems being highlighted, and the full repertoire of behavioural responses that might be appropriate. More fundamentally, they often fail to draw out the cross-sectoral relationships that may exist between the different types of problems facing society. This may be a serious drawback in the context of promoting awareness and understanding of concepts such as sustainable development. More significantly, because they fail to promote participation and empowerment they also fail to promote a sense of shared responsibility, again a key ingredient of sustainable development. They simply seem to reinforce the view that government will always take the lead in identifying important issues and problems. The Hong Kong community has also tended to adopt the view that it is government’s job to clean up the environment.

At one level, these shortcomings may be seen both as a failure to invest in and develop ’social capital’ (Rydin and Pennington, 2000) in Hong Kong and as a reflection of government’s posture, which remains wedded to the view that the state should adopt the role of controller rather than facilitator. As Rydin and Pennington (2000) observe:

A facilitator state allows considerable local autonomy to individuals and groups but provides a supportive framework. . . . The emphasis here is on individuals and groups providing their own institutional arrangements to solve collective action problems with the state acting to support them in this particular role. . . . Under a controller regime, by contrast, the state, rather than helping communities to develop their own institutions for environmental planning, effectively takes over the task of managing the environment itself.

In addition, by focusing environmental education efforts at the community-wide level, rather than, for example, at the district and local level, Hong Kong’s campaign-based approach is more vulnerable to one of the basic problems of collective action: noncooperative behaviour or ‘free-riding’. Incentives for individuals to participate and co-operate are unclear and there are few if any sanctions available to encourage participation.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:57

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Envimmental education and sustainable o!aelopmat Hills

The ECC’s own approach is itself somewhat contradictory and inconsistent. On the one hand,

criteria when evaluating grant applications. These include:

it is a promoter of campaigns through its involvement in such activities as World Environment Day and the annual Environmental Protection Festival. On the other hand, it has adopted a reactive rather than proactive approach in its support for activities which it funds.

Selecting and funding projects in Hong Kong Among the ECC’s various subcommittees is the Environmental Education and Community Action Projects Vetting Committee, which is responsible for evaluating grant requests and authorizing financial support for projects in these fields. The grants allocated by this committee come from funds provided by the Environment and Conservation Fund (ECF) , which was established by the government through a law passed in 1994. The ECF was established to support environmental education and research projects by non-profit- making bodies and a sum of H a 5 0 million (approximately US$6.4m) was set aside by the government for this purpose. The Fund was replenished in 1998.

The main objective of the Fund is to promote individual behavioural and life style changes to protect the environment and achieve sustainable development. These changes should lead to the conservation of biological diversity; improved air quality; reduced noise pollution; improved water quality; minimization of waste generation and promotion of the 3R concept; and the sustainable use of energy.

The Vetting Committee was established in September 1994 following the launching of the Environment and Conservation Fund. The Vetting Committee, acting on behalf of the ECF and ECC, receives and evaluates all environmental education and community action grant applications and has the authority to directly approve funding for all projects below H a 1 5 0 000 (US$19 000 approximately) in value. Projects exceeding the $150 000 threshold must be approved by the main ECF Committee itself but the Vetting Committee’s advice is normally taken into account when making a decision on specific projects. The Vetting Committee applies various

(a) The expectation that selected projects will contribute to the overall environment of Hong Kong, raise the environmental awareness of the local community, or mobilize the community to take action to improve the environment;

(b) The need to demonstrate that benefits will accrue to the community as a whole, that the project is needed, will not duplicate the work of other groups, is well- planned and scheduled, realistically budgeted, and within the technical and project management capabilities of the applicant.

The Vetting Committee comprises members drawn from the main Environmental Campaign Committee itself, including academics, representatives of environmental NGOs and government officials from the Environmental Protection Department, Education Department, and the Environment and Food Bureau of the Government Secretariat.

Between September 1994 and December 1999, the Vetting Committee received 449 grant applications, ofwhich 309 (68.8%) were approved. Total funds approved or committed amounted to Ha13.76 m (approximately US$1 .76 m). The number of applications received each year has fluctuated considerably, ranging from 126 in 1995 to 54 in 1997.

Of the 449 applications received, more than half were submitted by community groups and one quarter by environmental NGOs. The remainder were submitted by schools and tertiary institutions (Table 1). Schools have the highest success rate in applications - some 79% - and tertiary institutions the lowest, at 54%. The lower success rate of tertiary institutions may be due to the fact that they sought funding for activities that do not fall strictly within the terms of reference of the Committee (e.g. projects with a research element). Community groups, while accounting for 52% of the approved projects, have received only 35% of the funds disbursed. Environmental NGOs account for 23% of the approved projects but 54% of the funds approved (Table 2).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:57

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Environmental education and sustainable d e u e m t Hills

Table 1 Environmental Campaign Committee, 2000)

Number of applications approved and grants awarded by the Environmental Campaign Committee (Source:

No. of No. of Sucms rate A w e d Applicants applications % UpprVals % % amuunt (HI@)

Environmental NGOs 106 23.6 70 22.7 66.0 7 377 122 Community groups and 236 52.6 161 52.1 68.2 4 845 505 voluntary organizations Schools 81 18.0 64 20.7 79.0 752 768

788 702 Total 449 100.00 309 100.00 68.8 13 764 099 Tertiary institutions 26 5.8 14 4.5 53.9

Table 4 Committee, 2000)

Size of project grants awarded to different categories of applicants (Source: Environmental Campaign

A@licants

Grants Aptnwed Tertiary Cmnmuniiy g*ollps and Enviwnmatal (HI@) institutions voluntary organizations NGOs schools Total

< 5000 2 36 0 30 68 5000-10 000 1 24 1 10 36 10000-50000 4 70 13 20 107 50000-100000 2 18 18 2 40 100000-150000 5 11 35 0 51 > 150 000 0 0 3 0 3 Total 14 159 70 62 305*

* Four approved projects were subsequently withdrawn

Table 3 Level of financial support for approved projects (Source: Environmental Campaign Committee, 2000)

Budget No ofprojects % Cumulative % ~ ~

< Ha5000 68 22 22 5000-10 000 36 12 34 10000-50000 107 35 69 50000-100000 40 13 82 100 000-150 000 51 17 99 > Ha150 000 3 1 100 Total 305* 100 100

* 4 approved projects were subsequently withdrawn

Approximately one third of the projects approved have involved funding of less than $10 000. A further 35% have been allocated funding of between $10 000-$50 000 and another 30% between $50 000-$150 000 (Table 3). The majority of projects supported are therefore relatively small in scale, financially.

The Vetting Committee has supported a wide variety of projects. The largest single group of

projects involve ‘campaigns’ of one kind or another. Outdoor activities have also proved a popular type of project, followed by seminars and workshops, and various kinds of environmental publication. Less than 2% of the applications received have been concerned with the development of environmental education as an activity.

Environmental NGOs have typically placed


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:57

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Enuimmentul educatirm and sustainable deuelopment Hills

emphasis on seminars and workshops, awareness campaigns of various types, publications and surveys. Schools have favoured outdoor activities and campaigns. Tertiary institutions have focused on seminars and workshops, and social surveys on environmental themes, while community groups and voluntary organizations have mainly applied for support for awareness campaigns, outdoor activities, seminars/workshops, and environmental publications.

The largest single group of approved projects (almost 24%) were targeted at secondary school students. If other groups of students (i.e. primary and tertiary) are included, one third of all the approved projects were targeted at students. A further 15% of projects were targeted at children. The elderly and minority groups, such as the mentally ill, have received very little attention.

In looking at the experience in Hong Kong over the past five years, it is clear that the Environmental Campaign Committee has supported a wide variety of projects undertaken by a correspondingly diverse group of organizations. This has perhaps been its most significant contribution.

However, while it appears there has been a relatively high level of activity in the field of environmental education and community action projects, it is difficult to make any detailed assessment of the extent to which these activities have actually helped to shape environmental attitudes and change behaviour, and indeed to assist in capacity-building. This may be attributed to three main reasons. First, the grant application vetting process has placed insuflicient emphasis and weighting on the design of projects and, specifically, the incorporation of performance indicators linking outputs to specified targets. Second, insufficient attention has been given to the monitoring of projects and their impacts and benefits. Third, the Committee’s reactive approach results in each project being considered on its own merits. No attempt is made to prioritize needs in community-wide environmental education and no incentives have been offered for the development of innovative approaches.

Although considerable effort has gone into constructing a system of financial support for environmental education and community action projects in Hong Kong, this system has placed greater emphasis on inputs rather than outputs.

In addition, the entire exercise has taken place in the absence of an integrated strategy for environmental education in Hong Kong. Furthermore, as we have suggested, linkages between environmental education, community mobilization and sustainability concepts remain poorly articulated. Thus, efforts in Hong Kong might best be described as a ‘campaign without a strategy’.

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES This section focuses on contemporary environmental education efforts in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom and is intended to provide both a broader context for the discussion and benchmarks against which to assess Hong Kong’s approach. Our more extensive report to the Environmental Campaign Committee also reviewed the approaches adopted in Canada, Singapore and Scotland but, for the purposes of the present paper, we shall confine the discussion to just three national examples.

Australia In Australia emphasis is placed on Agenda 21 as the basic framework for the development of environmental education. The country’s strategy is set out in a discussion paper entitled Tohy Shupes Tomorrow - Environmental Education fm a SwtainableFuture (Environment Australia, 1999a), and is based on five principles: first, that it must involve everyone; second, that it must be lifelong; third, that it must be holistic and about connections; fourth, that it must be practical; and finally, that it must be in harmony with social and economic goals.

Key components of environmental education include awareness raising (‘does it matter to me’), shaping of values (‘should I do something about it’), developing knowledge and skills (‘how can I do something about it?’), and making decisions and taking action (‘what will I do?’)

Environmental education in Australia comprises three basic elements. The first is developing awareness and interest in environmental issues through communication and ‘marketing’ of ideas and values. The second is building capacity to address these issues through improved levels of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:57

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Environmental educution and sustainable development HiUS

information, expertise and skills, at the same time building communities of interest and establishing relationships between them. The third is providing resources and support to enable action to be taken to ameliorate or resolve problems.

A recent review of the environmental education initiatives undertaken by the Australian Government’s Department of the Environment and Heritage has identified a number of areas which should be addressed to improve the educational effort. These include better coordination within government and between government and non-government bodies; more emphasis on capacity building; the use of market research to design and evaluate the effectiveness of programmes; the application of more educational expertise to guide and manage activities; and increasing awareness and capacity building amongst the media to help improve coverage of environmental issues

The review has also generated various proposals for institutional development and the re-focusing of activities, including the establishment of an expert advisory body on environmental education to assist the Minister, and a steering group to oversee educational activities to avoid duplication of effort and enhance effectiveness. Particular emphasis is also placed on establishing a series of benchmarks against which progress can be measured and reported.

Funding for various types of environmental education in Australia is provided through the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) which was established by the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act (1997). The Trust is intended to support projects which address the environmental threats which are regarded as national priorities (Environment Australia, 1999b). It therefore focuses on the themes of land, vegetation, rivers, coasts and marine, and biodiversity. The Trust’s basic objective is to promote sustainable agriculture and natural resource management, and biodiversity, through improved management and delivery of resources. It does this by providing funding for environmental activities at the community level, the State/Territory level and the national level.

The Trust is administered at the national level by a Ministerial Board comprising the Minister for Environment and Heritage, and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. The

enabling legislation also established an Advisory Committee comprising experts in the environmental field. The Act defines the areas of expertise of at least five of the members and these relate directly to the key themes mentioned above.

While the total sum to be invested in the Trust is AUSgl.25 billion, the present Australian Government also intends to establish a capital base of AUS$SOO million to fund future environmental activities ‘in perpetuity’. The guiding principles of the Trust include an emphasis on addressing the causes of problems rather than their symptoms, developing management systems that foster long-term environmental, economic and social benefits, and encouraging individual landholders to invest to achieve high standards of performance in natural resource and environmental management.

The Trust provides assistance at various levels. Community groups can apply for financial support in the areas of landcare, bushcare, rivercare, wetlands and the Murray-Darling (catchment) 2001 programmes. Applications are assessed by regional assessment panels which include environmental experts and specialists but which have a majority of community members. This is a relatively new scheme and little information is yet available on the projects actually funded or their impact. Nonetheless, the Trust has a number of noteworthy features, including its clear focus on specific thematic areas, its tiered structure (from the community level to the national level), its emphasis on tackling the causes rather than the symptoms of problems, and its concern with individual responsibility at the landholder level.

New Zealand

Like Australia, New Zealand has a carefully considered and welldeveloped framework for environmental education which is based upon a 1996 discussion document entitled ‘Learning to Care for Our Environment’, which again is strongly influenced by Agenda 21 (Ministry for the Environment, 1998). In New Zealand, environmental education is defined as:

A multidisciplinary approach to learning that develops the knowledge, awareness, attitudes, values and skills that will enable individuals and the community to contribute towards maintaining and improving the quality of the environment.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:57

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Enuimmental education and sustainable deuelopmet Hills

Many potential providers of environmental education are identified, both within the formal education sector and outside it, including government departments, local authorities, environmental NGOs, landcare and similar community groups, industry groups and environmental consultants. They engage in a variety of educational activities, including education about the environment (i.e. providing information about environmental phenomena), education in the environment (i.e. using field studies and other outdoor activities for learning and skill development), and, education for or with the environment (i.e. where activity is directed at influencing environmental concerns).

The outcomes expected from environmental education include equipping individuals, families and communities with the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values that result in sound environmental behaviour, and the effective transfer of knowledge gained from research and good practice to those that need it. Another desired outcome is the effective use of environmental education to help people and organizations understand and implement environmental and other policies. The well- informed participation of communities in issues affecting their environment is also regarded as a key outcome. The integration of environmental education within the school curriculum and into business and professional education in a wide range of sectors are also important concerns.

To achieve these outcomes, the Government has defined clear priorities and supporting actions for environmental education which include encouraging the integration and coordination of activities; evaluating and improving the effectiveness of these activities in the transfer of knowledge and implementation of policy; maintaining and enhancing the capacity of the Maori people in resource management; incor- porating the aims of environment education across the school curriculum; promoting environmental education in business education and training; and providing individuals and communities with the information and understanding to enable them to make environmentally sound decisions.

It is also recognized that the implementation of the strategy must be monitored. This is done in part through an Environmental Education Ce

ordinating Group and Maori Focus Group which advise the Secretary for the Environment on the implementation of the strategy and priorities for action. Monitoring is also linked to the annual review of progress in the implementation of the country’s Environment 2010 Strategy. The third mechanism comprises the more comprehensive four-yearly review of the Environment 2010 Strategy, the next being scheduled for 2000.

New Zealand’s Sustainable Management Fund (SMF) was established in 1996 (Ministry for the Environment, 1999) and its main purpose is:

. . . . to support the Community, including industry and local government, in a wide range of environmental management initiatives. Funding is provided to enable sectors of the community to idenufy and participate in developing solutions to current sustainable management issues.

The Fund is open to any individual, group or organization able to deliver any of the outputs in the specified topic areas but preference is given to applicants who represent those who will benefit from the project outcomes as opposed to service providers or consultants. Potential providers include community groups, regional councils and territorial authorities, research agencies, industry groups, professional bodies, NGOs, and, tertiary institutions

The Fund focuses on projects that are practical, have a national benefit, consult with stakeholders, and which can demonstrate community demand. Funding focuses on developing and applying methods rather than pure research and the Fund also seeks to transfer information and technologies from technical experts into the wider community. SMF projects produce various kinds of outputs, including resource kits, guidelines, reports, training programmes, databases and decision support programmes. By early 1999, more than NZ$20 million had been allocated to 220 projects.

A number of significant changes have recently been introduced in the administration of the Fund (Ministry for the Environment, 1999). The allocation for part of the Fund is being changed to a tendering system to allow the Ministry for the Environment to direct funding to projects in the Government’s priority areas but for which suitable projects have not been forthcoming. Since 1998, special attention has been given to the importance of Maori environmental values and practices.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:57

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Environmental education and sustainable develupmmt Hills

Changes are also being introduced to give greater weight to in-kind contributions to projects, and to the dissemination of information resulting from funded activities. The Ministry for the Environ- ment itself is promoting the SMF by organizing seminars on project outcomes, and’on application procedures.

The SMF emphasizes the importance of practical projects that are of benefit to New Zealand as a whole. Projects must deal with issues that are identified by the community, and the community must express a desire for the outcomes of the project and be prepared to contribute to it. Project funding ranges between NZ$20 000 and NZ$500 000 and funds are allocated as payment of a proportion of the total costs incurred. The proportion allocated varies from 20-80% depending on how high a priority the project is, and the degree of support gained from project partners and the community.

The SMF provides a good example of a framework for environmental funding that has clear guidelines and priorities, is output driven, and has rigorous auditing and monitoring procedures embedded in the process of project implementation. The use of a tendering approach to address needs in areas for which suitable projects are not forthcoming and its concern with community involvement, and openness and transparency in its own procedures are noteworthy .

The United Kingdom The United Kingdom’s Sustainable Development Education Panel (SDEP) was established in February 1999 to advise the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Education and Employment on a wide variety of issues related to sustainable development (HMSO, 1999). The objectives of the Panel are to promote a strategic approach to sustainable development education in England, to i d e n q gaps and opportunities in the provision of sustainable development education and consider how to improve that provision, and to promote an approach that will reduce duplication, increase cooperation and develop synergy between all the sectors and groups involved.

In addition, it is also considering whether and

what targets should be set for various sectors, highlighting best practice and considering the means of disseminating it more widely, and making recommendations to key stakeholders on priority areas for action. The Panel’s work to date has been guided by three basic principles. First, that sustainable development is the responsibility of everyone. Second, that education for sustainable development needs to pervade every aspect of life. Third, that the UK’s prosperity in the long term depends on its capacity to learn about sustainable development. It defines (HMSO, 1999) education for sustainable development as being:

. . . . about the learning needed to maintain and improve our quality of life and the quality of life for generations to come. It is about equipping individuals, communities, groups, businesses and government to live and act sustainably; as well as giving them an understanding of the environmental, social and economic issues involved. It is about preparing for the world in which we will live in the next century, and making sure that we are not found wanting.

The Panel has already made an input to the review of the National Curriculum in schools, has started to speclfy what people should learn, has responded to a Government consultation paper on sustainable business, and endorsed a code of practice prepared by the Council for Environ- mental Education for those producing resources for education for sustainable development. Its current work programme is focusing on the following areas:

(1) Language: finding a language of engagement on sustainable development that is relevant, accessible and meaningful to a wide range of people;

(2) School provision: undertaking a survey of education for sustainable development in schools and understanding of sustainable development among school leavers, and establishing benchmarks against which to measure progress;

(3) Workplace: reviewing the current extent and quality of education for sustainable development provision in the workplace, and organizing a conference to bring together key stakeholders in the area;


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:57

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Enuironmatal education and sustainable ahelopnat Hills

(4) Youth work reviewing the practice of education for sustainable development in youth work and developing a curriculum;

(5) Further education guide: producing a guide for further education on environmental management systems

The Panel has set itself some challenging goals for 2010 in relation to the key groups, sectors and stakeholders with whom it wishes to engage (HMSO, 1999). For example, various targets have also been set for the public and households. By 2010’80% of adults should understand the need to live sustainably, 75% should understand how individual behaviour impacts on sustainable development and 60% should have been able to change their behaviour to live more sustainably. The SDEP is ambitious and engages directly with the concept of sustainable development as the focus for education. Clearly, it is too early to be able to make any assessment of the effectiveness of its work but the idea of setting performance targets for levels of public awareness and behaviour change defines a new direction for community-wide education efforts.

LESSONS FROM INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE Community-wide environmental education This brief overview of overseas experience suggests a number of significant characteristics of approaches adopted elsewhere.

The first is the importance of having a clear sense of what environmental education is and an operational definition to work to which is typically linked to Agenda 21, and in particular Chapter 36, as a source of guiding principles for the formulation of educational strategies for sue tainable development. Second, is the need for clarity about the aims of environmental education itself and expected outcomes, and specifically whether it is indeed addressing the much broader aims and objectives of sustainable development. Third, is a need for an agreed overall strategy for environmental education or ‘education for sustainable development’, requiring the establishment of long-term goals, the integration and c e ordination of activities, the avoidance of wasteful

duplication of effort and maximization of synergistic effects. Fourth, is recognition of the linkages between education and participation and the need to make everyone a stakeholder in the process which can only be done in a context that promotes inclusion rather than exclusion. Finally, there is a need for clear measures of performance, ideally linked to targets, through which to measure the effectiveness of environmental education and community mobilization efforts, as well as a regular monitoring and review process.

Funding arrangements Again, evolving international practice suggests a number of basic characteristics and principles of funding schemes. Funding tends to be guided by the principle of allocating all or a large part of the funds available to support projects in clearly defined priority areas. These schemes are typically linked to government policy objectives for the environment, which is understandable given that the schemes themselves are funded from the public purse and are administered by government ministries or agencies. In the case of the SMF in New Zealand, a tendering process has been introduced to ensure that neglected areas related to policy priorities are addressed through what are, in effect, commissioned projects.

From an administrative perspective, the programmes we reviewed typically possess grant application vetting procedures that focus in detail on the applicant’s capabilities and track record, as well as the clarity of the proposed project’s objectives. External assessment of project p r e p o d s is a major input to the vetting and selection process. Internal vetting within government agencies is also an important element of most of the schemes. In some it is more a test of eligibility, while in others it is a check on both quality as well as relevance to government policy objectives for the environment.

These programmes also place considerable emphasis on not just the ‘deability’ of projects but also their outputs and benefits. These benefits must be measurable and clearly linked to pre- defined targets. A useful distinction can be made between efficiency (i.e. comparing inputs and outputs) and effectiveness (i.e. comparing outputs with targets), particularly in performance review.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:57

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Envimnmental education and sustainable deuelopment Hills

Table 4 Benchmarking community-wide environmental education and its funding in Hong Kong

Cliten’CWl Australia New Zealand United Kingdom Hong Kong

Definition of environmental education/

Aims and expectations of environmental

Comprehensive strategy for environmental

Recognition of linkages between education

Use of performance measures to assess

linkages to Agenda 21

education defined

education

and participation

effectiveness of education/community mobilization efforts

Clearly defined priority areas for funding Funding linked to government policy

Detailed grant application vetting/external

Emphasis on measurable outputs Requirement for matching/cefunding Permanent secretariat to support funding

Emphasis on projects responding to

objectives

assessment

scheme

community needs/linkages with community

J

J

J

J

J J

J

J J J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J J

J

J J J

J

J

J

J

J

J

J n.a.

n.a.

n.a. n.a. n.a.

n.a.

n.a.

X

Partially

X

X

X

Partially

Partially

X

X

X

Quasi-permanent

X

Another important feature, as in New Zealand, is the requirement for matching or co-funding. The level of funding provided varies but this is typically regarded as an effective mechanism for leveraging project support and providing funding for a wider variety of projects. It is also clear that the project auditing and monitoring procedures of most of these overseas programmes are rigorous and extensive.

Our review of overseas experience indicates that schemes typically operate with a permanent secretariat supported by advisory bodies, usually comprising independent government appointees, that play a key role in the project vetting and selection process. Procedures differ from country to country, particularly with regard to the extent that ministers have delegated responsibility for funding decisions to the bodies concerned.

Finally, importance is attached to addressing perceived community needs and involving the community as active and continuing participants. This is a major project selection criterion in most of the programmes. Underlying this concern appears to be a guiding philosophy that environmental funding programmes should promote participation and empowerment, and

foster a stronger sense of responsibility on the part of the community, indeed all stakeholders, in protecting and enhancing environmental quality. Project applicants are seen not just as agents of change themselves but also as facilitators.

BENCHMARKING COMMUNITY-WIDE ENVIRONMENTALEDUCATION IN HONG KONG In Table 4, we summarize the above discussion and attempt to benchmark Hong Kong against a number of key criteria for the organization and administration of community-wide environmental education and its funding as revealed by our review of practice in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Clearly, Hong Kong has some way to go to match the efforts underway in the three countries studied. The critical element that is missing at present in Hong Kong is an integrated and comprehensive strategy for environmental education at the community-wide level and one that is explicitly linked to sustainability principles.

There is also a need to think more broadly about the target groups whose attitudes and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:57

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Environmental educatim and sustainable deuelopmat Hi&

behaviour are to be modified. Much of the effort to date in Hong Kong has focused on schools and younger people in general but, as we have stressed, everyone has a role to play in contributing to a sustainable future. Engagement points have been limited in many respects and there is much more to do in areas such as the workplace.

Hong Kong’s approach would also benefit fi-om greater clarity concerning the desired outcomes of environmental education and how these might be measured, and progress evaluated. There is a need to focus both on short-term changes as well as longer term outcomes which are supported through a continuing commitment to the develop ment and implementation of appropriate educational and training programmes.

There are already a substantial number of environmental education providers in Hong Kong although their expertise and capabilities vary considerably. A key element of any environmental education strategy must be capacity-building. Outside of the formal education sector, it appears that little provision exists for the training of environmental educators. Resources must be made available for capacity building within NGOs and the voluntary sector, and at the community level, to enhance the prospects for more effective consultation and participation of the general public in processes of environmental change. Regarding the latter, innovative community-based projects should be encouraged with a view to securing continuing and active involvement of the public in the pursuit of a sustainable future for Hong Kong.

CONCLUSIONS While issues concerning environmental education have been addressed to some extent in the specific area of the school curriculum (Education Department, 1992; 1999), no systematic attempt has been made in Hong Kong to define a comprehensive strategy to guide activities and funding priorities across the area as a whole.

financial resources, especially among environmental NGOs, and a limited ability to assess the overall effectiveness of the numerous projects and activities that have been supported.

In a place as small as Hong Kong, where relevant policy networks are clear, the existing institutions are few in number, and where potential providers of environmental education can be readily identified and frequently interact with one another, these weaknesses are all the more striking.

The resource base for funding environmental education initiatives in Hong Kong is by no means limited and the issue is not so much one of generating significant additional finance but rather of how to use existing resources more effectively. This paper argues that this can only be done within the framework of a comprehensive strategy for environmental education in Hong Kong which is inclusive, participatory and empowering, and which stresses that ‘environmental education for a sustainable future’ is everyone’s shared responsibility. This implies a shift away from the campaign-based model to a new approach focusing on communities and districts. Such an approach might also help to overcome the ‘free-rider’ problem as it provides a context in which peer group pressure at the local level can be mobilized to encourage co-operation and participation.

While there are indications that some of these issues are beginning to receive attention from potentially influential stakeholders, it still seems difficult to break away from the ‘top down’ approach. In late 1999, a Working Group on Public Education, Awareness and Culture convened by the then Planning, Environment and Lands Bureau (from part of which the Environment and Food Bureau was created in January 2000) published a report as an input to a government consultative document on environmental policy. The Report (Planning, Environment and Lands Bureau, 1999) sets out an ‘action plan’ which:

Consequently, at the community-wide level there is frequent overlap between and duplication of projects, weak integration of environmental education initiatives, a failure to exploit synergies between Merent activities, unnecessary and often counter-productive competition for access to

. . . . is aimed at raising community environmental awareness, focusing public concern/criticism on immediate environmental issues and eventually changing the mindset of the people.

Several key programmes are highlighted including:


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:57

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Environmental education and sustainable dmelopment Hills

(1) To reinforce dissemination of environmental messages to the public and decision makers through various channels and approaches;

(2) To launch large-scale publicity campaigns regularly on different environmental themes;

(3) To introduce award schemes, ambassador schemes and annual exhibitions to stim- ulate community participation and support on various environmental concepts and ideas;

(4) To allocate more funding support for environmental publicity and education.

Little attention is given to education for sustainable development or to the need for initiatives launched at the local community level whereby ordinary people can be encouraged and empowered to participate in shaping their own future and quality of life. The emphasis appears to be on more of the same approaches which have been of only limited effectiveness. This is borne out by the results of the survey conducted during the public consultation phase of SUSDEVSl quoted in the Report. When asked to indicate the relative weighting to be attached to economic, social and environmental factors in shaping Hong Kong’s future development, almost 70% of respondents indicated that the economy should be the most important element, while only 5% favoured the environment. Nonetheless, the Working Group has again placed emphasis on enhancing environmental awareness through a managed ‘campaign-based’ approach. No attempt has been made to define the nature of community- wide environmental education, its purpose or the most effective mechanisms for its delivery and development.

Hong Kong’s current approach makes it

difficult, if not impossible, to achieve effective coordination among the various providers of environmental education in the SAR. Given its position and the role it has played over the past decade, the ECC could play a much stronger and more effective co-ordinating role, particularly at the strategic level. This, however, is a sensitive issue as environmental NGOs may feel that it impinges on their own autonomy and indepen- dence of action. It also has resource implications in terms of the kind and level of support provided through the Committee’s secretariat.

Hong Kong must also resolve the extent to which the objectives of environmental education are themselves linked to government’s own environmental objectives. Thus far, there has not always been effective co-ordination of the two. For example, while community action projects relating to household waste recycling have been undertaken for some years, it is only recently that government has put in place supporting measures to ensure that sorted household waste is not simply disposed of at landfill sites.

If environmental education needs are to be explicitly linked to policy objectives for the environment, the Hong Kong Government must become more responsive to community needs and perceptions, and recognize the importance of consultation and participation in the policy- making process. To achieve this it must shift progressively away from the ‘control regime’ to the role of facilitator. Such a change is likely to come only slowly, however, as it is inextricably linked with the overall development of political institutions in the Special Administrative Region. Nonetheless, there is clearly much that can be done in the short term to enhance the effectiveness of community- wide environmental education programmes in a city which is at last beginning to recognize that its future economic success will depend on substantial improvements in the overall quality of life.

REFERENCES Banon, W. and Steinbrecher, N. (eds) (1999). Heading

Towards Sustainability ? Practical Indicators of Environmental Sustainability for Hong Kong. Centre of Urban Planning and Environmental Manage- ment, University of Hong Kong)

Bringing the Vision to Lye: Hong Kong’s Long-term Deuelopment Needs and Goals. (Hong Kong: Printing Department)

Davies, S. and Roberts, E. (1990). Politicalfictionary for Hong Kong. (Hong Kong: MacMillan Publishers)

Commission on Strategic Development (2000). Education Department (1999). Guidelines on


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:57

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Environmental education and sustainable developnent Hills

EnvironmentalEducation in Schools (prepared by the Curriculum Development Council). (Hong Kong: Education Department)

Education Department (1992). Guidelines on Environmental Education in Schools. (Hong Kong: Education Department)

Environment and Food Bureau (2000). New Action Plan to Tackle Air Pollution. Press Release, May 9, 2000. (Hong Kong: EnvironmentandFoodBureau)

EnvironmentAustralia (1999a). Toduy Shapes Tmnonmr: Environmental Education for a Sustainable Future, A Discussion Paper Department of the Environment and Heritage, URL.: http://ee.environment.gov.au

EnvironmentAustralia ( 199913). NaturalHm'tage Trust: Helphg Communities Helpzng Australia. Department of the Environment and Heritage, URL: http:// www.nht.gov.au

Environmental Campaign Committee (2000). Environmental Education for a Sustainable Future: A Report to the ECC the Centre of Urban Planning and Environmental Management, University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Environmental Campaign Com- mittee)

Environmental Campaign Committee (1998). Report ofthesuruqr on Community Attitudes to theEnvironment 1997-98. (Hong Kong: Environmental Campaign Committee)

Environmental Campaign Committee (1997). ECC and Me-Protecting OurEnvironment: Second report o f the Environmental Campaign Committee 1994-96. (Hong Kong: Environmental Campaign Com- mittee)

Environmental Protection Department (1999). Environment Hong Kong 1999. (Hong Kong: Environmental Protection Department)

European Commission (1997). Environmental Educa- tion in the European Union. (Brussels: European Commission)

Filho, W.L. (ed.) (1997). Lijelong Learning and Environmental Education. (Frankfurt: Peter Lang)

Government of the HmAR (1999a). Hong Kong 1998. (Hong Kong: Government Information Services)

Government of the HKSAR (1999b). Sustainable Development in HongKong forthe 21st Century: Second Stage Consultation. (Hong Kong: Printing Department)

Hills, P., Zhang, L. and Liu, J.H. ( 1998). Transboundaxy pollution between Guangdong Province and Hong Kong: threats to water quality in the Pearl River Estuary and their implications for environmental policy and planning, Journal of Environmental Planningand Management, 41 (3), 375-96

Hills, P. and Barron, W. (1997). Hong Kong: the challenge of sustainability, Land Use Poliq, 14(1), 41-53

Hills, P. and Chan, C.L.W. (eds). (1997) Community MobihtMn and theEnuironment in HongKong. (Hong Kong: Centre of Urban Planning and Environ- mental Management, University of Hong Kong)

HMSO (1999). SustainableDevelopnentEducationPaneh First Annual Report 1999. (London: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions)

Ho, R. (1998). Hong Kong. In Palmer, J.A., Environ- mentalEducation in the 21st Centuly: T h e q , practice, progress and promise. (London: Routledge)

Home Affairs Bureau (2000). Major Findings of the Telephone Opanion Suruqr Gmducted in May 2000. (Hong Kong: Home Affairs Bureau)

IUCN/UNEP/WWF (1991). Caring for the Earth: A StrateD for Sustainable Living. (Gland: IUCN/ UNEP/WWF)

Liu, J.H. and Hills, P. (1998). Sustainabilityand coastal zone management in Hong Kong: The case of Mirs Bay. International Journal of Sustainable Deve@ment and World Ecology, 5,ll-26.

Loh, C. (1999). HongKinag A sustainable World Cily in the Millennium - An A h a t i v e Poliq Address 1999- 2000. (Hong Kong: Citizens Party)

Ministry for the Environment (1998). Zmnzing to Care for Our Environment: A National Strategy for Environmental Education. (New Zealand: Ministry for the Environment)

Ministry for the Environment (1999). Sustainable Management Fund. New Zealand, URL.: http:// www.mfe.govt.nz

OECD (1995). Environmental Learning for the 21st Century. (Paris: OECD)

Palmer, J.A. (1998). EnvironmentalEducation in the21st Centuly: Theoly, practice, progress and promise. (London: Routledge)

Planning Department (1999). Sustainable Development for the 21st Century: Changing the Way We Think and Act! (Hong Kong: Printing Department)

Planning, Environment and Lands Bureau (1999). A Recommendation PaperonEnvironmentalPublidty and Education for Inuyboration into the Green Paper on Environmenta1Policie.s forthe 21st Century. (Prepared by the Working Group on Public Education, Aware- ness and Culture), September 1999. (Hong Kong: Planning, Environment and Lands Bureau)

Rydin, Y. and Pennington, M. (2000). Public participation and local environmental planning: the collective action problem and the potential of social capital, Local Environment, 5 (2), 153-69

Smith, G.A. (1999). Creating a Public of Environ- mentalists: The Role of Non-formal Education. In Smith, G.A. and Williams, D.R. (eds), Ecological Education in Action: On Weaving Education, Culture and the Environment. (Albany, Ny: State University of New York Press)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:57

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Environmental education and sustainable deuelopment Hills

Transport Department (HKSAR) (1999). Third Gnnpehemive Transport Study: StrategicEnvinmmental Assasmat TechnicalRLgort. (Hong Kong: Transport Department)

Tung, C.H. (1999). Qualily People - Qualily Home: PoSitMningHongKongjiithe 21 st Century, Address by the Chief Executive at the Legislative Council Meeting on 6 October 1999. (Hong Kong: Printing Department)

United Nations (1993). Agada 21: The United Nations Programme of Action j b m Rio. (New York: United Nations)

Waddington, D.J. (ed.) (1995). Global Environmental Change Science: Education and Training. (Berlin: Springer)

WCED (BrundtlandCommission) (1987). O u r h m o n Future. (Oxford Oxford University Press)

Wong, C.M. et aL (1999). Does ozone have any effect on daily hospital admissions for circulatory diseases?, Joz~null of Epdemiology and Communily Health, 53,580-1

Wong, E.M.O. and Stimpson, P. (1994). Teaching styles of Hong Kong’s environmental educators in secondary schools, Research in Education, 52,l-12.

Wong, K.K. and Man, C.S. (1999). Environment: will Hong Kong become greener tomorrow? In Chow, L.C.H. and Fan, Y.K. (eds), The Other Hong Kong Report 1998. pp. 383-401 (Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press)

Yeung, S.P.M. (1995). Environmental consciousness and geography teaching in Hong Kong: an empirical study, Environmental Education and I n f i t i o n , 14(2), 171-94


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 1

9:57

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

Environmental education, community mobilization and sustainable development in Hong Kong: a comparative perspective