就「蓮塘/香園圍口岸及相關工程」環評報告(EIA-190/2010)，香港觀鳥會已向環境保護署提交反對意見，現附上本會就該環境評估報告的正式意見書(只有英文版，見附件)。
The Hong Kong Bird Watching Society objects to the approval of the EIA report on "Liantang / Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point and Associated Works" (EIA-190/2010). We have sent our official objection letter to Environmental Protection Department (English version only, see attachments).
正式意見書:
Formal comment letter:
Heung Yuen Wai BCP EIA comment - HKBWS.pdf (115.36 KB)
現將本會意見概括如下:
A summarization of our comments:
1. 工程理據不足 Justification for the project
環評報告沒有交代現有口岸(文錦渡及沙頭角)的擴建潛力。
項目包括一條高速公路，利用香港鄉郊土地建造公路舒緩深圳的交通擠塞，並不合理。
The report had not assessed expansion potential for existing Boundary Control Points (i.e. Man Kam To and Sha Tau Kok).
There is no justification to build connection road on Rural Lands in Hong Kong to solve traffic congestion problems in Shenzhen.
2. 報告低估農地生態價值 Under-estimation of Ecological Values of Agricultural Lands
報告雖在荒廢及使用中的農地找到不少有保育價值的品種，可是仍將這些生境評為「低生態價值」或「中至低生態價值」，且不提供任何生態補償，我們認為不可接受。
The report found many species of conservation interest in Abandoned and Active Farmlands, but said these habitats are of “low ecological value” or “moderate-low ecological value”. No compensation measures were suggested by the report and we think this is unacceptable.
3. 生態影響評估粗疏 Incomprehensive Ecological Impact Assessment
報告的生態影響評估部份並不全面，例如雀鳥飛行路線影響部份沒有科學理據或觀察數據支持、沒有詳細評估對夜行雀鳥的影響。
The Ecological Impact Assessment part of the report is incomprehensive, e.g. it did not provide statistical data nor scientific literatures for assessing flight path impacts and it did not comprehensively assess the impact of night birds like Eurasian Eagle Owl.
4. 誤導手法 Misleading Approach
報告在香港雀鳥狀況一欄聲稱根據「香港鳥類名錄」，可是報告中一些字眼與「香港鳥類名錄」所寫並不相同，一些書中所指「稀少(scarce)」的雀鳥在報告中被寫成「不普遍(uncommon)」或「普遍(common)」，涉有誤導之嫌，令受影響地點的生態價值被低估。
The report claimed it followed the book “Avifauna of Hong Kong” when assessing the status of birds, however the wordings used in the report are different from the book. Some “scarce” bird species according to the book was written as “uncommon” or even “common” in the EIA report. This makes the affected area apparently low in ecological value.
5. 生態補償及監察不足Inadequate compensation measures and monitoring
報告就受破壞的農地、濕地及次生林的補償不足或不當，就隔音屏障鳥撞等問題亦未有提議相關監察方案，我們認為不可接受。
The report did not suggest adequate or suitable compensation for affected farmlands, wetlands and secondary forests, and did not suggest monitoring measures for problems such as bird collision with noise barriers. We think this is unacceptable.
鄭諾銘
香港觀鳥會自然保育主任
Cheng Nok Ming
Conservation Officer, HKBWS
