Doubts raised on Hong Kong government's tree policy after Peng Chau cut-down plan halted

Fresh doubts have been raised over the scientific basis of the government’s tree-felling decision process, after residents’ protests put a plan to slash a tree on the outlying island of Peng Chau on hold – a second controversy of the kind this month since the felling of four century-old Chinese banyan trees in Sai Ying Pun.

The tree in question, a 12-metre-tall Celtic sinensis, stands on Shing Ka Road on Peng Chau, which is not on the government’s old and valuable tree list.

The Lands Department originally scheduled to cut it down on Tuesday, citing two complaints from residents who said it posed risks to passers-by. It told the media last week that removal of the tree was recommended because it suffered multiple problems including soil erosion, fungal infection and a slanted trunk.

But after a protest staged by other residents and green activists last Friday, the department sent experts to conduct another inspection on Monday and later announced it had suspended to plan to cut the tree.

“[The experts] are now reviewing [the plan] and preparing their observations. The Lands Department will take into account this further report by the experts before taking appropriate follow-up action,” a department spokeswoman said on Monday night.

“If the department eventually decides to remove the tree for the sake of public safety, the district lands office will arrange tree removal work accordingly,” she added.

Democratic Party deputy environment policy spokesman Ted Hui Chi-fung, one of the activists campaigning against cutting down the tree, said the campaign was backed by expert opinion on the tree’s health but he believed the department was only succumbing to public pressure by making the U-turn.

University of Hong Kong tree expert Professor Jim Chi-yung said he had not inspected the tree on Peng Chau, but criticised the department for failing to present evidence before coming concluding that the tree was beyond salvage.

“Tree work should be very scientific and objective. I don’t understand why it became such a mess … if the Lands Department deems the tree must be cut, why has it not made public its tree inspection report?” he said.

“That tree is situated on a very gentle slope, normally an unlikely place of soil erosion. Has the department tried to find out the cause of erosion? For example, if it is caused by underground drainage pipe leakage, the problem can be solved by repairing the pipe concerned.

“As for fungal infection, that is very common in trees – like flu and cold in humans – and does not necessarily mean the tree has to be cut down. Would you put down a person because he suffers from a flu or a cold?”

Meanwhile, tree officials will consult an expert panel on any plans for removal of old and valuable trees, as well as stonewall trees – but only under “non-emergency” circumstances.

The suggestion was floated in the first meeting between the Development Bureau’s Tree Management Office and Expert Panel of Tree Management on Monday morning, since the controversial felling of the four century-old stonewall trees in Sai Ying Pun.

The office and panel members discussed ways to enhance the existing notification system for tree removals after some members criticised the Highways Department for not consulting the panel when it felled the four trees along Bonham Road earlier this month over public safety fears.

The office, however, insists it still maintains the right to fell trees without consulting the experts if it is an “emergency” situation that compromises public safety.