Response to Public Consultation on Review of Nature Conservation Policy
28 October 2003
Environment, Transport and Works Bureau
Government Secretariat
10/F Citibank Tower
3 Garden Road
Hong Kong
Dear Sir,
Response to Public Consultation on Review of Nature Conservation Policy
We are responding to the above consultation document with our comments.
Hong Kong’s natural resources are abundant, and there have been considerable achievements in identifying and protecting this heritage. The most important of these is the establishment of the country parks system. The identification of special areas and the zoning policy also contribute. Nonetheless, we agree that further efforts to improve the system are needed. Our comments are as follows.
Overall, the purpose of the paper is not particularly clear. As far as we can understand, the paper asks firstly for comments on a proposed scoring system for assessing the ecological value of sites, and secondly for support for a proposed public-private partnership on sites in private hands which have been identified to be of ecological value. We find this approach to nature conservation policy too narrow. The paper does not attempt a real review of the situation such as would enable the reader to properly evaluate the proposals. The brief discussion of “Limitations” is incomplete. There are obvious issues in current conservation policy that are not mentioned. These include, the effectiveness or otherwise of environmental impact assessments, the spoliation of agricultural land in the New Territories by illegal or semi-legal uses such as container parking and light industry; and the issue of visual pollution - i.e. the erection of tall structures that dominate scenes of natural beauty. We also suggest that considerations of ecological value should not be divorced from considerations of cultural value. For example, abandoned villages in the middle of country parks may provide opportunity for preservation of an asset of double - ecological and cultural - value. A more holistic approach to conservation policy would be useful.
As regards the scoring system, we believe that a system of this kind may be useful. However, we wonder how the proposed system compares with methodologies used overseas. If the system is simply “home made”, it may not stand up to the rigours of practice, or may easily be subject to challenge.
As regards the second proposal, for a public-private partnership approach, we find the logic curious. As far as we can understand it, the proposition seems to be,
-
The landlords of these private sites wish to develop them and realise a profit; but
-
They cannot because the sites are zoned for agricultural purposes;
-
Nonetheless, they occupy the land and can use it for war games etc. in ways that reduce the site’s ecological value; therefore,
-
The Government will buy them out by giving them development rights over a portion of the site in return for ceding the remainder to the Government for conservation purposes.
The above reasoning seems to be predicated on the assumption that the Government cannot enforce the zoning restrictions, or cannot do so indefinitely, hence the landlords see their land as having “development value”, even though it is zoned as agricultural land. We take issue with this implicit assumption. We think that more attention should be given to enforcement. It is true that enforcement requires resources, but this is true of all laws and regulations. We have no sympathy whatsoever with the assertion (page 5 of the Annex) that "…policing and enforcement against illegal land uses require tremendous resources…" and therefore by implication cannot be done. The rule of law depends on enforcement.
From observation of the rural New Territories, it appears that there are flagrant breaches of zoning restrictions, as noted above. If a more effective approach were taken to enforcement, the landlords’ resistance to converting their sites to conservation use would be less, since they would understand that they only be losing the agricultural value, not the (presumed) development value. Given the low value of agricultural usage in the present-day economy, the compensation payments, if any, that would then need to be made would probably be small. We urge you to reconsider the whole policy on enforcement.
We also do not agree with the paper’s dismissal of "Options Considered Impractical", namely land resumption, land exchange, and tightening of existing conservation measures. In the context of a more rigorous approach to enforcement of existing regulations and zoning restrictions, these options should be reopened.
In short, the paper appears to seek the reader's acquiescence in existing breaches of the law or regulation, and proposes to rectify the situation by paying off the offenders. This is not acceptable. We therefore urge reconsideration of the whole approach to conservation of privately-owned sites.
We hope that the above comments are helpful.
Yours sincerely,
Alan Lung Ka-lun
Chairman
Reproduction of this paper is permitted with proper attribution to the Hong Kong Democratic Foundation