|
HKBWS Members
 
- UID
- 26
- Posts
- 1172
- Digest
- 0
- Credits
- 229
- NickName
- HKBWS WY
- Online
- 2775 hours
- Registered
- 10/10/2006
- Last login
- 27/08/2021
|
2#
A A
A Post at 5/01/2010 21:16 Show author
Summary of the HKBWS submission to the North East New Territories Development Study
The following is a summary of the HKBWS submission to the North EastNew Territories Development Study, in which Planning Department has proposed tozone Long Valley for development. We explain why this is unacceptable, andpropose that it should be resumed, and zoned for conservation instead. Aconservation zoning would also recognize LongValley’s importance for people - as a place to enjoy Hong Kong’s agricultural and natural heritage, and as a site whereconservation became the priority despite our trash and cash developmentculture.
You can still make a submission expressing your views on Long Valley by emailing to srpd@pland.gov.hk before 12 January. If you do, please send a copy to HKBWS at conservation@hkbws.org.hk. We are also keen for photographers to support the campaign, and have created a logo to add to pix of birds taken in Long Valley. The logo can be downloaded from the HKBWS website at http://www.hkbws.org.hk/doc/CDNCEA.zip and from the HKWildlife website at http://www.hkwildlife.net/doc/CDNCEA.zip
Summary of HKBWS Submission
1. Long Valley is universally recognized for its high ecological value.
Long Valley has been recognized for its ecological value, not just by HKBWS, but by many other environmental groups, all the relevant government departments and bureaux, and even by those who have tried to damage its ecological value.
• Ten years ago KCRC recognized Long Valley’s high ecological value but tried to trash it. Ten years later Planning Department have again recognized its high ecological value, and have proposed a zoning that could trash it.
• Back then AFCD and EPD fought in a tribunal to protect it, and in 2004 they identified Long Valley as one of 12 sites of outstanding ecological value under the nature conservation policy.
• Back then the Advisory Council on the Environment refused to endorse KCRC’s EIA for Long Valley, and in December ACE refused to endorse the proposal unless Long Valley was zoned as a Nature Park.
• The Environmental & Conservation Fund has given Conservancy Association and HKBWS substantial funding to enhance its biodiversity, to protect its agricultural heritage, and to share Long Valley with the wider public.
• The 5 Black-faced Spoonbills that have visited the drained fishpond in the last few days and the Yellow Breasted Buntings that came onto the rice fields – both are threatened species newly attracted by our successful management!
2. So what’s the problem?
PlanD has been urged by landowners to zone the site for development. They claim that because they own the land they have the right to develop it. This is not true. Right now Long Valley is zoned for “Agriculture”. This means that landowners can only use the land for farming. To develop the land they must apply to change the zoning. If you have to apply, there is no right. End of story.
But PlanD has “respected” the views of villagers and tried to compromise, with a zoning that seems to allow for both, called Comprehensive Development Nature Conservation Enhancement Area (CDNCEA). The idea is that a developer will develop a part of the site, but must commit to protect and enhance the ecological value of the rest of the site.
Apart from creating a false expectation in landowners that they do have a right to develop, there are two problems with this zoning:
1. It creates an assumption that it is OK to develop Long Valley, and increases pressure for development. It is not OK. According to the basic principles of town planning, sites of high ecological value should zoned for conservation.
2. Long Valley can only be protected if part of the site is developed: so CDNCEA means: “No development, no conservation”. But remember, for private developers nature conservation is only ever a means to an end, never an end in itself.
3. What’s the alternative?
There are two parts to the HKBWS proposal:
• Long Valley should be given a purely conservation zoning
PlanD is supposed to establish zonings reflecting the current value of the land. Long Valley is an area of outstanding ecological value. Conservation zonings – Conservation Area, Nature Park, Nature Reserve, or Site of Special Scientific Interest all offer better protection of ecological value, with no need for compromise, and no need to rely on the good will of developers.
• The Government should resume Long Valley.
HKBWS fully supports the resumption of Long Valley up to the boundaries set out by AFCD and published on its website at: http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/c ... ho_sheung_heung.pdf Once it is Government land no one else can develop it. If LV is zoned for conservation and owned by the Government, it should be safe forever.
4. Everyone wins
Even though some officials claim that land cannot be resumed for conservation, this is not true. In fact there is a very good precedent. The Government resumed the land for the Wetland Park because of the ecological value of the fishponds at Tin Shui Wai. What has been done before, can be done again!
However, if the Government resumes Long Valley as part of the Kwu Tung North New Town, the landowners will be compensated at a fixed rate that is much more than their land is worth for agriculture. If the Government do this then everybody wins – the landowners, the wildlife, the environmental groups and birders, villagers who oppose development, and the future residents of Kwu Tung.
It is important to remember that Long Valley is too small and too sensitive to turn into another Wetland Park. Fortunately there is relatively disturbance-free access along the drainage channel access road on the edge of the site. Careful planning will allow many people to enjoy Long Valley with minimal disturbance.
|
