More likely, there is another factor involved, as the reported decline in sea life is not unique to Hoi Ha Wan. As a resident, I would have to say that our concerns should be directed towards visitors to the park who take 'souvenirs' from Hoi Ha Wan - an activity that is illegal, totally unchecked and sadly ignored by the Country Parks Authority.

Name and address supplied

On other matters ...

I refer to your article on Saturday ('WWF admits marine park finances all at sea') and on Monday ('Plan for marine centre crackers'). We at WWF are increasingly concerned by your paper's determination to put a negative spin on every story about our education centre in Hoi Ha Wan.

While we have over the last several months tried to address criticisms in your paper reasonably and objectively, and very much appreciate and respect your generally pro-conservation stance, your headlines about our centre were deliberately provocative and misleading, and your reporting inaccurate and one-sided. No attempt was made in either article to seek clarification from WWF. In Monday's article you quoted David Newbery of the Friends of Hoi Ha Wan without giving us a chance to comment.

Your articles arose out of our presentation to the Country and Marine Parks Board meeting last week, at which I was present. Our comments on the finances of the centre were made in response to questions from board members who were understandably concerned about its financial sustainability: this is very far from an admission that our finances are 'all at sea'.

Our aim for the centre is financial self-sustainability, which we hope to achieve through fees charged for tours, fund-raising campaigns and corporate and individual donations. This is a model which we have followed very successfully at the Mai Po reserve.

We hope to avoid having to ask for government handouts for the Hoi Ha Wan Centre, but our CEO, Stephen Lau, did mention at the meeting that if this proves necessary, we hope the government will respond positively. The centre is, after all, providing an important community service in educating the public about the critical need for marine conservation.

We mentioned the possibility of making the centre available for corporate events. Our corporate membership programme is one of our great successes of the last three years, and has done much to encourage Hong Kong's corporate and business sector to become engaged in conservation. Many of our corporate members take part in the conservation-focused events that we put together as part of the programme, and others have sent staff members to the Mai Po reserve for volunteer work. As to whether they will find the Hoi Ha Wan centre an attractive venue for corporate events - let them decide.

On the question of bus permits, we are not seeking 'unlimited permits'. We mean to apply for the number we need to run our school and public programmes, within the current quota, which was set after we ourselves lobbied for tighter controls to the permit system.

Our visitors will be picked up in Sai Kung and shuttled into Hoi Ha Wan. The buses will not park in Hoi Ha Wan. Our visitors will be accompanied and supervised from the moment they are picked up in Sai Kung, to the moment they are returned there at the end of the tour. This is surely preferable to some of the unsupervised tour groups that are currently visiting the Marine Park?

The Country and Marine Parks Board made many other suggestions to WWF about the centre's financial sustainability, its impact on the fragile environment, and our plans to feature marine life from the bay in our aquariums and touch pools. The board suggested that a third-party environmental audit be conducted on the centre every year. All these matters went unreported in your articles.

WWF is a true friend of Hoi Ha Wan. The presence of our centre in the bay will ensure Hoi Ha Wan's long-term survival and serve as a rallying point for campaigns to conserve it. Hong Kong's marine environment is rapidly deteriorating. We need to build community support for marine conservation, and education is the way to do it. Markus Shaw, Chairman, WWF Hong Kong

One legacy of this present administration may well be the destruction of Lantau. This marvellous island, home to our second- and third-highest mountains, with stunning coastal vistas, is under renewed threat. Not only have policy initiatives to ameliorate earlier destruction not been met, but more destruction is evidently planned under the aegis of a new government taskforce. Extensions to the Lantau (North) Country Park - promised in the 1999 policy address to partly offset the airport-related loss to the countryside - have yet to materialise.

The 2004 policy address speaks of the need for the formation of a taskforce to speed infrastructure and development projects specifically on Lantau.

Why has the emphasis changed? Why have government planning studies that recommend the conservation of Lantau for recreation and amenity been blatantly ignored?

Both coasts of Lantau are now under unprecedented attack. Despite having already lost about 25 per cent of the natural coastline to airport-related projects, we are being told we need a value-added logistics hub and further container terminals, for which locations have been mooted without any regard to due process for the north coast of Lantau. This is in addition to providing the landing point for a mega bridge connecting Hong Kong with Macau and Zhuhai.

On the south coast, the Planning Department in an aberration of planning principles, has proposed the construction of a super prison. To be formed by reclamation in the middle of one of the most scenic vistas imaginable, this construction and its massive bridge would destroy the charm of this area.

Lantau offers marvellous opportunities for eco-tourism ranging from parasailing and hill walking to the more passive pursuits of nature study and simply relaxing on quiet and beautiful beaches.

These wonderful assets co-exist as part of the whole that is Lantau. Chip away at that with development projects and we will lose the whole. Is this the legacy we wish to leave?

Clive Noffke, Green Lantau Association