Board logo

Subject: [Hong Kong] Save HK Ramsar Wetland 救救拉姆薩爾濕地 [Print This Page]
Author: wdickson    Time: 19/09/2008 11:38     Subject: Save HK Ramsar Wetland 救救拉姆薩爾濕地

http://www.mingpaonews.com/20080919/gsa1.htm

環評委員憂濕地變豪宅後園
米埔豐樂圍環評報告通過

明報專訊】長實與世界自然基金會合作、位處米埔濕地的元朗豐樂圍發展項目，其環評報告昨日獲環諮會環評小組通過，醞釀多年的項目闖過首關，稍後會向城規會提出申請及補地價程序，若一切順利便可動工，預料2016年落成，濕地範圍首3年由基金會管理及營運。有小組成員不滿新樓盤落成後，連同濕地部分的整塊地皮均落入地產商手中，限制市民進入，批評「提升濕地價值，最終卻淪為豪宅住戶的私人後花園」，公眾可享用的國際級濕地大幅縮水，並不合理。

除了豐樂圍，恒地另一個位於和生圍的住宅項目，早前已獲環諮會通過其環評報告。港府上月向環諮會提交的資料顯示，米埔一帶共有11個發展項目等候審批，預料陸續有來。

80公頃地 5%建住宅

長實執行董事吳佳慶昨日親自領軍出席環評小組會議，甫開始便說項目經歷10多年，希望最終得以落實。豐樂圍地皮佔地80公頃，約等於5個維園面積，當中5％土地發展住宅，其餘列為保育區。該地皮當中有43公頃早於1995年被劃為「拉姆薩爾濕地」，獲國際公約保護。

委員：樓高10層不協調

環評報告提出3個方案，建築面積同樣為14.8萬平方米。當中第一及第二個方案，最高建樓分別是18層及15層，報告表示傾向該兩個方案，因為佔地最少。長實代表昨日出席會議時指出，第一個方案將採用中間留空設計，對景觀影響減至最小。

長實稱樓宇大量綠化 顏色配合環境

委員劉祉鋒仍擔心樓宇逾10層高，與新界樓宇普遍只有數層樓高不協調，對此有保留。另一委員黃家和批評會議「無意思」，指整幅地皮由私人擁有，屋苑落成後，連同濕地範圍均限制公眾進入，剝削市民享用大自然的權利，「濕地變了發展商的宣傳工具，唔知開會有什麼意思？如果可投票，我會否決這個項目。」世界自然基金會表示，該土地約一半是拉姆薩爾濕地，太多遊客會構成滋擾，該會暫未就訪客人數訂下具體計劃。

該會稱，長實將撥款400萬元供基金會首3年管理及營運保育區用途，長遠注資基金有待商討。為了住宅項目與自然融合，長實以書面回覆環評小組，指樓宇會有多項環保特色，例如大量綠化、樓宇外牆鋪設不反光物料、樓宇顏色配合周圍環境、街燈種類及安裝位置也會考慮會否滋擾生態。

Referring to the map of the forthcoming development proposal, HK Ramsar Site is under serious threat from the residential development and the human disturbance, noise, air, light pollution should be increased dramatically. All the developers are advertising their development cause no neglect lost on the wetland habitat and even can increase the ecological value of the site. But who can guaranteed regarding their claims and who will be responsible for monitoring their conservation works after selling out and making the profit? It seems there are no strategic and accumulative impacts assessment among these projects. I am really worry about the future of our wetland. Should HKBWS put this issue to Birdlife International and Ramsar Convention? International pressure would surely make a difference. At least, we could fight for the better coordination among different development and conservation plan.

[ Last edited by Webcreeper at 20/09/2008 16:07 ]
Author: cchristina    Time: 19/09/2008 14:57

English Verison from South China Morning Post

South China Morning Post
CITY1 |  CITY |  By Joshua But         2008-09-19


Advisers voice fears over Mai Po project        

Cheung Kong plan sparks health concerns

Public health and the impact on the landscape are among the concerns of a government advisory body over a plan by Cheung Kong (Holdings) to build homes around fish ponds and marshes near one of the city's most sensitive wildlife spots.

Plans for the Fung Lok Wai project in Yuen Long call for the development of only 5 per cent of the 80-hectare site near Mai Po Nature Reserve, famed for its bird life. The remaining area will be turned into a wetland nature reserve by the developer to be run by an independent body.

But critics say the planned blocks are five or six times the height of the usual three-storey New Territories houses and worry about possible risks in an avian flu outbreak.

An environmental impact assessment report, released for public comment last month, was seen as helping the property developer to win support from sceptics about the feasibility of its plans.

The report came under discussion yesterday by a subcommittee of the Advisory Council on the Environment, which will advise the director of environmental protection on whether the project should go ahead.

Subcommittee member Edwin Lau Che-feng said the project was too close to the birds' habitat. "The government as a precautionary measure ordered closure of the Mai Po reserve during the bird flu outbreak last year," he said. "Is the government prepared to evacuate the residents in the project if bird flu hits the city?"

Mr Lau, also director of green group Friends of the Earth, said the project was "incompatible" with the landscape and scenery of the habitat.

Subcommittee chairman Ng Cho-nam said he would report members' advice to the council at a meeting scheduled next month and urged the government to monitor the management and financial support of the planned wetland nature reserve.

The developer has pledged to set up a non-profit foundation to oversee the reserve, which would be managed by professionals.

Mutual Luck Investment, a subsidiary of Cheung Kong, said yesterday it was "committed to the financial requirements of the setting up and the operation of the wetland nature reserve". A sum of HK$4 million would be injected every year for the operation of the reserve before the foundation was established, which would take about three years.

"WWF Hong Kong will participate and monitor the design, construction and operation of the reserve and will train up staff for the future management," the company said.

Janet Lee Ka-wai, conservation officer of WWF's Mai Po projects, said WWF planned to revive the abandoned fish ponds in the area and fishermen would be employed to resurrect the old practices.

Grace Woo Chia-ching, executive director of Cheung Kong Holdings, said she was confident the development would be completed in 2016.

Rich Valley has also proposed building 21 houses and a clubhouse in the wetland buffer area near Mai Po. That plan is due to be discussed by the Town Planning Board today.
Author: HFCheung    Time: 19/09/2008 19:43

Personally I oppose to the plan.  Any plan to build inside the Ramsar site subordinate area would mean a direct reduction of the core area.  If the area is identified as having high conservation value, then any mitigation plan after the using part of the land for development is compromising the value of the land.

I would also like to add that in this case, not only is the land important.  The sky around is also very important for large soaring raptors in Hong Kong.  With tall buildings in the area, the available space for these large raptors would be reduced very significantly.  After the tall buildings are in place, I cannot imagine any large Eagles flying right near to the building.

I am not familiar with how the Ramsar Convention operate.  For that I have to learn more.  For now, any suggestion is welcomed.  

HF Cheung
Author: wcaptain    Time: 22/09/2008 09:40

The ideal option of saving private Deep Bay wetlands (mainly fishponds) is land resumption by the Govt. But it is less likely that the Govt will do it in forseeable future. So, the popular remaining option is the public-private-partnership (PPP), i.e. the majority area will be conserved and managed by losing some area for development.

It is a hard decision, but the most key thing is that we need to enhance the value and function of these wetlands, in particular abandoned/degraded fishponds: the value and function are sometimes important than the area. Clearly, a large area of empty wetlands with no waterbirds is no use for people and wildlife. Remember most Deep Bay wetlands are man-made and they need to be managed....

If HKBWS do not agree with the PPP model, it will be great if we could have fund raising events in order to purchase Deep Bay fishponds one by one.

Captain
Author: wdickson    Time: 22/09/2008 10:19

Captain,

I agreed with you that HK Government would not spend money in buying up the wetland and it is impossible for green groups to raise money in safeguarding these area too. And the upgrading of the abandoned fishponds could really enhance the ecological value and benefit the birds. However, my concern here is if this green light is given to the developers to build such high raise/ high density building right beside the Rasmar Site/ inside the buffer zone, other similar developments should happen around this important wetland in the near future. The cumulative impacts and the overall disturbance has not been assessed or impossible to assess. This surely would not be a wise-use of the wetland when considering the interests of birds. Moreover, the so-called conservation plans agreed is guaranteed for three years only. They had not mentioned the management and funding for those wetland afterwards. What can we do if they left the wetland abandoned after the funding period as those lands are private areas. From the track record of the developers' promise, they will never make it if these are not profitable.  

Dickson
Author: wcaptain    Time: 22/09/2008 10:29

Dickson,

A quick response. As far as I know, the developer has to set up a trust (an independent body funded by the developer but the board should have a wide spectrum of people) to manage the wetland under the EIA Ordinance.

To be honest, most developers have no interest in managing such wetlands and so they are happy to set up a trust and let the trust run the wetland reserve.

I guess the Govt is also looking for the answer of how to manage different trusts due to several developments in Deep Bay .... that is why a lot of people asking a territory-wide conservation trust in HK.

Captain

[ Last edited by wcaptain at 22/09/2008 11:23 ]
Author: Sze    Time: 12/10/2008 21:49

除了上述大家的憂慮外，我仲突然諗起另一個問題！　
依家d樓既窗台興大大個，大大塊玻璃！
好擔心！唔知起咁多楝樓係米埔附近，
會唔會令到好多過境及渡冬既雀撞玻璃窗死呢？
Author: lchunfai    Time: 12/10/2008 22:13

Quote:
Original posted by Sze at 12/10/2008 21:49
除了上述大家的憂慮外，我仲突然諗起另一個問題！　
依家d樓既窗台興大大個，大大塊玻璃！
好擔心！唔知起咁多楝樓係米埔附近，
會唔會令到好多過境及渡冬既雀撞玻璃窗死呢？ ...
有可能.... 之前隔音牆整死了不少市區雀鳥...



Welcome to HKBWS Forum 香港觀鳥會討論區 (http://hkbws.org.hk/BBS/) Powered by Discuz! 6.0.0