Posted by Webmaster on December 07, 1999 at 14:56:23:
Below is a letter communicating the Society's formal objection to the segment of the spur line which crosses Long Valley, for HKBWS member's information:
**************************
Quote"
7 December 1999.
Mr W F Ng
Secretary for Transport
Murray Building
Garden Road
Central,
Hong Kong.
Dear Sir,
Reference is made to Gazette Notice No. 5774 dated 4 October 1999. This is to communicate the objection of the Hong Kong Bird Watching Society to the location of that segment of the spur line between Sheung Shui and Chau Tau which will cross "Long Valley", that is, the plain bounded by Ho Sheung Heung to the north, Yin Kong and Tsung Pak Long to the south and the KCR railway line to the east. This is not an objection to the construction of the spur line per se.
The objection is based on the following points:
| (a) | Long Valley is of very high ecological value and its loss is not replaceable; | (b) | the proposed location of the spur line will lead to fragmentation of the habitat, which is a well-established cause of the collapse of natural habitats; | (c) | the loss of Long Valley will deprive the Hong Kong community of a great asset for the viewing of birds and other facets of nature co-existing in harmony with the traditional way of life in the New Territories; | (d) | the destruction of the Long Valley habitat will be a major blow to the maintenance of biodiversity which is one of the eight key guiding principles in the Government's committed policy on sustainable development; | (e) | alternative routes avoiding the Long Valley are available for the spur line and prospects are that these alternatives are cheaper to build; | (f) | the Planning and Development Studies on North East and North West New Territories are still going on and public consultation has yet to complete, making it in appropriate to fix the location of the spur line now; | (g) | the Environmental Impact Assessment of the project is not yet completed and the Hong Kong community has no opportunity up to now to see the results of that assessment; | (h) | development potential exists for Long Valley to benefit the Hong Kong community as a whole through the maximization of its ecological value and transforming it into a resource for biodiversity conservation, public education, tourism and job creation. |
There used to be extensive areas of similar habitat in the northwestern plains of the New Territories. However, plains in Shek Kong, Kam Tin, Ping Shan, Ha Tsuen, Tin Shui Wai, San Tin, etc., have successively succumbed to disorderly encroachment of container parks, dumping grounds and so on. If Long Valley is lost, it is not possible to find a replacement. It will be a loss forever.
As mentioned above, Long Valley has attained its high level of ecological importance because it does not suffer from habitat fragmentation. The proposed spur line cutting through Long Valley will do the fragmentation job. It is therefore not acceptable.
The Hong Kong population lives in a crowded urban environment and is badly in need of opportunities that would allow them to get in touch of nature and enjoy the pleasant sight of open space filled with natural life including both plants and animals. Birds are what most people associate with easily and happily. Long Valley provides that kind of opportunity. The open space at Long Valley with its contents in the form of birds co-existing harmoniously with traditional farming therefore is a valuable asset for Hong Kong. The proposed location of the spur will destroy this asset and so is not acceptable.
The Chief Executive of HKSAR has recently announced in the policy address a commitment to the practice of sustainable development. The public consultation document on the subject clearly indicates "biodiversity" as one of the eight guiding principles for sustainable development. The proposed route of the spur line will destroy the value of Long Valley in terms of biodiversity. Therefore it contravenes the publicly proclaimed policy of the HKSAR Government.
The Hong Kong Bird Watching Society has examined possible alternative routes for the spur line as well as the West Rail Phase II line. The latter line is found in figures given in the public consultation document on Development Proposals for Kwu Tung North, Fanling North and Ping Che/Ta Kwu Ling. We show in the attached map "A" two alternative schemes. The total length of the new tracks in alternative "1" (AB + CD) and that in alternative "2" (A'B' = C'D') are both about the same as that of the proposed routes crossing Long Valley. Indeed alternative "1" is the shortest of the three. Because the two alternatives we offer allow the railway to run on the ground in most places, there will be no need to build elevated viaducts for the railway tracks. They will therefore be cheaper options. Thus we see that it is possible to construct the proposed spur line without destroying the natural habitat and biodiversity at Long Valley, and possibly saving some money too. There is no reason why the Hong Kong community should pay the double price of (a) a more expensive railway line and (b) the loss of a piece of ecologically valuable land. Adoption of the alternative routes, preferably alternative "1", will be a 3-way win-win situation for the natural environment, KCRC and the Hong Kong community.
As a matter of general principle in governance, we find it extremely odd to see the spur line pushing ahead while public consultation about the Planning and Development Studies on North East New Territories is still going on. We believe in the genuine sincerity of the HKSAR Government in conducting such consultations and hope that that sincerity is fully reflected by putting the spur project in perspective, that is, as part of the public consultation mentioned above. Thus, it is inappropriate to allow the proposed spur line to go ahead at this time, especially since it would cut through and effectively destroy a piece of irreplaceable land of high ecological value.
In the same spirit, we object to giving the go-ahead to the proposed spur line as it is presently located when the Environmental Impact Assessment is still going on.
Finally, we would like to point out that by maximizing the biodiversity of Long Valley and by the introduction of appropriate management strategies, potential exists to turn Long Valley into a site that would make useful contribution to the welfare of the Hong Kong community. It could be transformed into a resource for biodiversity conservation, public education, tourism and job creation. (The Hong Kong Bird Watching Society, as a responsible locally-based organization concerned about the overall well-being of Hong Kong, is in the process of preparing a proposal along this line for presentation to the HKSAR Government.) To let the proposed spur line as it is located now to proceed would be to forfeit this opportunity. This would be doing a disservice to Hong Kong.
Based on the above discussion, we object to the location of that segment of the spur line between Sheung Shui and Chau Tau which will cross "Long Valley". We shall be happy to discuss further with the Administration in relation to this objection if you so wish. To contact the Society quickly, please communicate by fax (23693606) or by e-mail (chairman@hkbws.org.hk).
Yours sincerely,
Dr Ng Cho-nam
Conservation Officer
Click HERE for attached map "A" with suggested route.
"Unquote
**************************
Reference:
Click HERE for an enlarged map.
(Source: Planning Department http://www.info.gov.hk/planning/studies/nwnent/nent_dp_digest_2nd/nent_content_e.htm)