An edited version of the following appeared in the SCMP on 23rd June 2008 under the heading:


Late last year, a section of the Upper Tai Po River was dammed by an illegal 25-metre long road. Trees were felled and 258 square metres of surrounding land were excavated. Conservationists were aghast at the considerable damage done to this pristine and ecologically valuable environment. The road was built to provide access to an unapproved village housing project, and only came to the attention of the authorities through the vigilance of a member of the public.

The case recently came to court, at great public expense of time and money. The perpetrator was fined $6,500 and told to contribute $9,588 towards restoration costs. He had earlier been fined $1,000 for cutting down the trees. He must be laughing at being let off so lightly. The fine is not likely to have covered the cost of prosecution, and it is highly likely that the restoration costs substantially exceeded the amount of his contribution.

All over the New Territories, deliberate acts of environmental degradation and illegal roadbuilding are taking place. The problem has become epidemic in recent years because of the high prices being fetched by village houses: it is not unknown for village houses in prime locations with good access to fetch over $20 million. In other words, millions of dollars stand to be made by developers of village houses, but only where good road access can be provided. There is high incentive to provide this access illegally where it is not available - trees and streams be damned!

It cannot be said that the Government is especially vigilant in identifying and enforcing these and other illegal activities in rural areas. These cases are difficult to bring and involve a lot of time. But it must be very galling for government departments to put in all the effort of building and bringing a case, only to see the accused being let off with paltry fines. Perpetrators make a very simple calculation: the chances of being caught are very slim; even where they are caught and brought to court, so what? What are fines of a few thousand dollars, measured against the possibility of making millions if they can get away with it?

The judiciary needs to catch up. The maximum fine in the case described above is $50,000 and six months imprisonment. A monetary fine of this level, and a prison record, would go a long way to changing the assessment of risk by offenders.

There are two ways for fines to work as a deterrent: either, low fines but high rates of detection; or, low rates of detection and high fines. In these cases, rates of detection are necessarily low, since the activities take place in remote areas. Hence the deterrent will only work if fines are high.

In a less recent case, a person was brought to court for illegally gathering marine specimens from the Hoi Ha Wan Marine Park. The presiding Magistrate was heard to reminisce how he, as a youth, spent many pleasurable hours collecting marine life by the sea shore. The accused was let off with a light fine.

Last year, the Environmental Protection Department issued 16 summons under the Waste Disposal Ordinance for illegal fly-tipping on government land. The highest fine imposed in these 16 cases was $6,000. The maximum fine under the Ordinance is $20,000 for the first offence. Again, the level of fine, measured against the risk of detection, provides no deterrent at all.

To government departments charged with enforcing the law, these outcomes are demoralising and discouraging. The community has become much more aware of the environment, and far less tolerant of environmental crimes. The level of fines under the relevant Ordinances should be brought up to date with current realities and increased. Most importantly, they should be sternly imposed by the judiciary in order to act as an effective deterrent, and to reflect the community view that these offences will not be tolerated.