Decision to exclude Hoi Ha from country park ignores ecological data
I refer to the letter by Joseph Sham, of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("Government has the power to ensure enclaves are protected", June 24).
It displays a calculated abrogation of the department's responsibilities to safeguard Hong Kong's environment.
The decision not to incorporate enclaves into the country parks system was contrary to the government's enclave policy, the relevant working paper from the Country and Marine Parks Board and the Convention on Biological Diversity, which states that "sound and sustainable" planning processes must be put in place in areas "adjacent to protected areas".
The decision to throw the Hoi Ha enclave to the wolves of the Town Planning Board was made unilaterally and based on land ownership, not on ecological data.
The Hoi Ha enclave was assessed by the department as having no ecological, recreational or landscape value. Its "professional opinions" are incorrect. Its official ecological data for Hoi Ha lists one bird species (Hong Kong Bird Watching Society lists 97), butterflies - seven species (the Lepidopterist Society lists over 50) and moths - none (a leading moth expert lists 237). A 50-year-old lowland forest was described as "abandoned agricultural land" and species-rich marshland as "abandoned farmland full of grass and weeds".
The Convention on Biological Diversity is committed to the precautionary principle, which states ecological damage should be assumed to be a threat until proven otherwise; yet the department has not asked for any environmental impact assessments on the construction of more than 60 new septic tanks within 100 metres of Hoi Ha Wan. The law prohibits such systems being built within 100 metres of a site of special scientific interest. The department believes the environmental impact of quadrupling the size of the village can be assessed by looking at each application individually, with no thought for cumulative impacts.