Any useful debate about the state of our environment drifts to pure argument without accurate data

The debate surrounding the environment and, by extension, quality of life in Macau is often a difficult one. Most people agree the environment should be protected and that quality of life should be preserved.

Alas, that is also often the extent of the agreement.

Get into the specifics and consensus breaks down. The arguments tend to fall into somewhat extreme positions. Either one is for the environment, a “real green”, truly concerned by Mother Nature’s degradation; or pro-development, meaning that economic concerns – money – trumps everything. The middle path becomes untenable within the bounds of courteous and reasoned argument.

Nonetheless, this is a worthy, meaningful debate and it is regrettable that it is not the subject of more considered discourse.

Any reasonable and useful discussion or policy must be supported by reliable data. That is, evidence, figures and indicators about whose accuracy we all can be fairly confident, regardless of our opinions.

Last issue, in a different section of this magazine, I raised some concerns about the quality and reliability of some of the environmental data publicly available for Macau. Allow me to return to that issue.

Regardless of any changes on a technical level, one should expect that a solid set of data tracking environmental matters was available. That does not seem to be the case.

Frequently incomplete

Since 1998, the government has had a legal obligation to issue an annual report on the state of the environment. Apparently, that report has not been a top priority.

The reports for 2007, 2008 and 2009 were made available online only a couple of months ago. Moreover, the 2008 and 2009 reports were aggregated into a single document.

That the reports are not published annually reduces their usefulness for developing policy and suggests their substance is not taken seriously.

The importance the government places on environmental matters might also be inferred from the way meaningful indicators such as acid rain and the city’s green space are monitored.

Acid rain is likely to have an undeniable impact on the city’s buildings, infrastructure and green cover. What does the published data tell us about this indicator?

It is a pity that the published statistics list only the outlying values by the year and month – or months. The intensity and frequency of strongly acidic rainfall cannot be gauged with precision. The way the data is published also prevents any useful comparison between geographical areas or over time.

It gets worse.

Until 2004, Macau had two stations measuring acidity; one in Taipa, the other in Coloane. The Taipa station failed first. The footnote to the published statistics tells us that data “were not available due to malfunction of equipment”.

The second station malfunctioned in May 2006. For the remainder of that year, there was no data available at all. Only in 2007 did the Taipa station become operational again.

No further reference has been made to the measurement station in Coloane – it has disappeared from the statistics. And this is an indicator of environmental health that any secondary school lab should be able to measure with reasonable accuracy.

Magical growth

Data measuring the city’s total green area also appears to have integrity issues.

Two public bodies, the Civic and Municipal Affairs Bureau and the Cartography and Cadastre Bureau, used to share the responsibility for collecting data. Despite their joint efforts, in 2005 there was no estimate of the total size of the territory’s parkland. There is a blank in the data series, as figures for that year were “not available due to construction works in progress”.

In 2006, compared to 2004 – construction works notwithstanding – a slight fall in green cover was recorded.

In 2008, the city’s green area increased by about 920,000 square meters under what could only have been new data collection criteria. That area is roughly equivalent to about 130 professional-sized soccer fields. The Cotai reclamation provided a minor contribution towards the reported increase – less than four soccer fields.

But nothing compares to the jump in green area between 2009 and last year when the Civic and Municipal Affairs Bureau alone took responsibility for monitoring this indicator of our environment’s health.

Green cover rose by – not “to”, I must emphasise – about 657 soccer fields. To break down that surprising result, there were the equivalent of about 210 soccer fields of new green cover on the Macau peninsula, 274 fields in Taipa, 36 soccer fields in Coloane and the equivalent of 137 full-size soccer fields of new green cover in Cotai.

These are figures that defy any rational argument. Did the department use a new baseline or criteria?

Inevitably, there are reservations about the reliability and usefulness of this data. Wouldn’t a formal explanation be appropriate?

Until a plausible alternative is put forward, Macau’s residents may be forgiven if they understand the territory’s real environmental policy to be summed up by two ideas: support objectives that are broad and uncontroversial, and the less that is known (or done) about specific issues, the better.

José I. Duarte Economist, Macau Business Senior Analyst – jid@macaubusiness.com