Feel strongly about these letters, or any other aspects of the news? Share your views by emailing us your Letter to the Editor at [email protected] or filling in this Google form. Submissions should not exceed 400 words, and must include your full name and address, plus a phone number for verification Old and valuable trees (OVTs) are old trees on unleased government land considered of particularly high value due to very old age, large size, rarity, outstanding form or cultural significance. The register of these trees is maintained by the government.
My company was appointed by the Hong Kong Golf Club to undertake a tree survey. In September last year, I submitted nominations for the registration of 222 potential OVTs located on the 32 hectares of the Fanling golf course that
were resumed by the government on September 1, 2023, for housing development, so making these wonderful old trees eligible for registration. These trees are as good as, and in many cases better than, existing OVTs on the register.
One year later, none of these trees has been added to the register. Perhaps I should not be surprised. The register was created in 2004, but to my knowledge, no trees have been added since 2014. Rather, the number of registered OVTs
is dwindling due to death by old age,
disease,
typhoons and other environmental stresses.
The creation of the register shows the government’s good intent, but the dwindling numbers and failure to add new OVTs in the past decade betrays a dereliction of duty by government departments required to identify potential OVTs found in their surveys so that the relevant maintenance department may nominate them for registration. It seems beyond belief that in the past 10 years not one single tree worthy of registration has been identified across Hong Kong, particularly as development increasingly intrudes into green belts and wooded areas.
I believe there are two prime reasons for this dismal situation. Firstly, a systemic problem exists of
poor-quality tree surveys that are never properly checked for accuracy, so I suspect potential OVTs are being missed. Secondly, possible reluctance of government departments to recognise potential OVTs because that conflicts with their development plans – the glacial pace of the government’s assessment of the 222 nominated trees at the Fanling golf course seems to be evidence of this.
I also worry that civil servants reviewing the Fanling golf course nominations may be hesitant to register the trees because that would impede the government’s plan to build housing there, and thus possibly impact their career prospects under the updated
Civil Service Code.
