The deterioration of Hong Kong's environment has raised concerns among the territory's businesses and citizens about the quality of life here. The formation of the Business Coalition on the Environment (BCE) in June 1999, to act as the "green spokesman" for businesses, was a major milestone in the fight against pollution. Bulletin Editor Malcolm Ainsworth asked BCE Convenor Barrie Cook about the coalition's efforts to make Hong Kong a better place to work and live, as well as the environmental challenges the Hong Kong Government and the citizens of the SAR face.

The Bulletin: The BCE has been working hard to encourage businesses in Hong Kong to be more environmentally friendly. What have been the tangible and intangible results of those efforts?

Barrie Cook: I think the biggest intangible benefit is that the whole profile of the environment has been raised within the business community. You can see from the huge interest there is at these luncheons that we organise that businesses' understand they have an important role to play in protecting the environment.

Secondly, the business community in Hong Kong can now use its clout to lobby the government for action. This was particular apparent when we were experiencing very bad air quality a few months back. The whole business community was united in lobbying the government to take action.

Are businesses genuinely interested in protecting the environment, or are they just looking for ways to save or make more money?

I do think it's a combination of the two. There are some businesses like our own who are clearly interested in the environment, but there are also those who just want to make money. I would say, why not make this a win-win situation? That is the way forward.

Some of the talks that the BCE has organised have been inspirational. But what do you think it is going to take to get the majority of businesses in Hong Kong to seriously scrutinise their environmental practices?

I think one of the problems in Hong Kong is that the bulk of businesses are SMEs. The Chamber has been trying to reach out to them with free environmental mentoring sessions. But for them to take action, we have to get across the fact that good environmental practices is good business sense. You also have to bear in mind that most are local businesses, and that is going to be very challenging to make them change their ways. It doesn't take much to convince companies like Philips or Swire that they can make money from having good environmental practices, but it's a whole different story when you tell that to some guy who employs three people in a factory in Mongkok.

Should the government be using a carrot or a stick to get businesses to adopt more environmentally friendly practices?

You always have to have a combination of the two. Even the Chamber is a believer of the polluter pays. But at the same time, I believe the government needs to be a little more flexible in its environmental policy by resisting giving subsidies. Now I'm not saying that it should give out subsidies, but I think that we should not rule them out completely either.

Grassroots activists argue that the government is still unwilling to involve the public in the decision-making process -- the Victoria Harbour reclamation, approval for the building of a new power plant, and more recently the CT-9 programme being the most discussed issues. Do you think that is a fair judgement?

I believe there has been a very significant improvement in increasing transparency. Many government bureaus, although they still hold their meetings behind closed doors, are involving more of the public and grassroots activist. Some are even posting meeting minutes on the Internet. I think this trend has gone so far that its progress is now irreversible.

How do you think the government should formulate policies related to the environment to create a win-win situation for the environment, businesses, and government?

This goes back to bringing people into the argument. You've got to bring people into the debate. The grassroots activist, the NGOs, the public, the government and political voices must all be involved in the debate.

Are penalties for polluters heavy enough?

There is no question that some polluters are not fined heavily enough. But one area that I feel the government should adopt the polluter pays approach is with the case of solid waste.

Hong Kong's population is growing by about 1 million every decade. Will the territory be able to sustain this growth? What needs to be done to limit the impact of the swelling population?

I think if we go on the way we are going it won't be able to sustain its growth. The air pollution will get worse. The water quality will deteriorate, and with the growing amount of solid waste all the landfills will be full within 10 to 15 years. One of the first things the government needs to do is to formulate a strategy for sustainable development. It will be interesting to see what the Chief Executive says in his Policy Address this year. But without that Hong Kong will not be able to sustain its current speed of growth.

What will happen if environmental protection is not taken seriously in Hong Kong?

It will just become another big, dirty Chinese city.