Report on Election of Sites for Active Conservation

 

Background

Thought Hong Kong is one of the most densely populated cities, its flora and fauna are still comparatively rich in the region.  The Government statistics show more than 2600 species of plants, 400 species of birds and mammals, 200 butterfly and 100 dragonfly species.  However, the population of Hong Kong is expected to grow by 19 percent over the next ten years, reaching 7.5 million in 2010.  Coupled with the economic development, the natural environment is increasingly under threat. Urban expansion has cause irreversible damages to many areas of high biodiversity values.  To conserve this rich natural environment of Hong Kong, the Democratic Party believes that sites with high conservation value should be identified, appropriately managed and protected in perpetuity. Thus, the Democratic Party and Eco-education and Resources Centre co-organized the “Election of Sites for Active Conservation”, trying to identify conservation sites which are most treasured by the Hong Kong residents.  Through this activity, we hope to raise public’s awareness and disseminate knowledge on these priceless areas.  This environmental education and election activity was launched on 5th June 2003, the World Environmental Day.

 

 

Objectives

This activity bears the following objectives:

¡        Enhance the public’s awareness and knowledge of natural sites in Hong Kong with high conservation value.

¡        Identify the sites in Hong Kong that the public & environmental experts treasure most.

¡        By submitting the results of the election to the Government, to urge the government to set out policies and plans to secure the protection of these high priority natural sites as elected by the public and experts.

 

Natural Sites for Election

With reference to the Biodiversity Survey of the HKU and consultation with many experts, 20 natural sites, located in New Territories, Kowloon, and Hong Kong Island (see attachment 2), were selected for citizen groups, environmental groups and experts to vote for in this election and the following assessment criteria were adopted.

1)      Biodiversity,

2)      Landscape value,

3)      Scientific and Research value

4)      Private sites but under threat from development or people

5)      Natural sites located in conservation areas but are not proper managed or still under threat.

 

 

Voting

The voting period was from 5th June 2003 to 18th July 2003 and it was divided into two voter groups: 1) General Public Group 2) Environmental/ Academic/ Professional Experts Group (any citizen who is familiar with the election sites, he/she can choose to join the Experts Group in voting).  The final score of each site was calculated by averaging the marks given by the general public group and the expert group, i.e. giving equal weights to both groups. 

 

The questionnaire of the General Public Group and the Expert Group was different. For details of the questionnaires, please read the attachment 2.  The General Public Group Election: respondents were asked to give 1 to 4 marks to each of the 20 natural sites based on the information that we provided for each site and the following four criteria 1) Biodiversity value; 2) Landscape Value; 3) Scientific & Research Value & 4) Under the development threat or lack of protection.  The higher the mark, the higher the conservation value of the site would be.  The Expert Group Election: the experts were asked to give marks (1-4) for each site against each of the following headings:

1)      Biodiversity,

2)      Landscape value,

3)      Scientific and Research value (e.g. rarity of species)

4)      The degree of threat from development

That is, the experts are expected to mark (1 – 4) the four aspects for each site. The higher the total mark, the higher is the conservational value of the site. (Table 4)

 

 

Voting Results

After about 1-month election period, 2002 votes were received in the General Public Group; 36 votes were received in the Expert Group, in which, 3 from the environmental groups, 9 from academic experts while the rest from those who were familiar with the 20 sites.

 

Final results of the conservation election (the 20 sites were arranged from the highest conservational value to the lowest) are listed in Table 1.

 

Table 1

Final results of the conservation election

 

Final Average marks

(1-4marks, 4 represents the highest conservation value)

1.      Tung Ping Chau

3.42

2.      Hoi Ha Wan

3.25

3.      Sha Chau & Lung Kwu Chau

3.13

4.      Sha Lo Tung & Ping San Tsai

3.12

5.    Luk Keng

3.10

6/7 Tai Long Four Wan

   Tsim Bei Tsui & Sheng & Ha Pak Nai

3.07

8/9/10/11  Lai Chi Wo

         Sham Wan, Lamma

         Tai O

         Long Valley & Ho Sheung Heung

3.05

12. Tai Ho

3.01

13.Ng Tung Chai Stream

2.97

14. Wong Lung Hang & Tung Chung Valley  

2.93

15/16  Pui O

      Wu Kau Tang

2.92

17.Shui Hau

2.85

18/19 Nam Fung Rd Woodland & Mt.Nicholson

     Ngong Ping

2.84

20.Fung Yuen

2.77

 

 

Results Analysis

The results of the conservation election reflect the following points:

1)   Most respondents and experts rated all these natural sites as having high ecological and conservation value.  This was reflected by the small scoring range between the site Tung Ping Chau with highest conservation value (scored 3.42) and the site Fung Yuen with lowest conservation value (scored 2.77).  The scoring is so closed that many natural sites were in the same rank or priority.  All sites scored over 2.5 mark (see Table 1).

 

 

2)    There was some difference between the results of the Public Group and the Expert Group.  It is believed that the public would like to choose some famous sites or the sites that they visited before such as Tai O, Tai Long Wan and Ng Tung Chai Stream (see Table 3), while the experts tend to choose the sites with high ecological and biodiversity value, with rare species or under threat such as Hoi Ha Wan, Tsim Bei Tsui, Sha Lo Tung, and Luk Keng (see Table 2 & 4).   

 

3)   Recently, the Government has announced its nature conservation policy which mainly focuses on conserving ecologically important sites under private ownership. However, both the public and experts reflect that there is lack of proper management or real protection in the existing conservation areas such as Marine Parks. Tung Ping Chau, as one of the marine parks, still got highest score (3.31) under the criteria of “under development threat or lack of protection” in the expert group. Experts also expressed their concerns in this area (See Table 4 & 5). 

 

4)   The government proposed Scoring System for the Assessment of Ecological Value of Sites does not include landscape criteria. However, the 4 beaches of Tai Long Wan can enter top ten of the priority list of the conservation election, which shows the landscape value also be considered when conserving natural sites (Table 2,3 &4).

 

Our Recommendations

1)   Based on the findings of the conservation election, we recommend the addition of these 20 sites into the priority list of sites for enhanced conservation. The Government can update the ecological database regularly and gradually expands the priority list of sites, so that more sites with high ecological or conservation value can be protected in the future.

 

2)   We also suggest expanding the scope of review of the conservation policy raised by the government recently.  Apart from the natural sites under private ownership, other conservation areas such as Marine Parks and Country Parks should be included in the review.  Policies and actions should be set out to secure the protection or proper management of the sites and species.

 

3)   Landscape value and public views should be set as criteria in the Scoring System for the assessment of conservational value of sites.  This can balance the view from the public and protect the natural sites such as Tai Long Wan from development threat.

 

4)   To review the existing laws and measures related to conservation before implementation of the conservation plans is necessary.  There is room for tightening the existing conservation measures and formulating conservation laws. And there is potential risk of destroying important habitats by the villagers before carrying out any conservation plans under the existing measures.

 

5)   We also recommend formulating laws to back up both options of conservation management plans suggested by the government, so that the conservation agreements with landowners and private-public partnership can be approved, monitored and managed properly.  The government can compare the conservation management laws in other countries such as New Zealand before enacting the laws. Besides, we suggest that a specific conservation management committee should be responsible for implementing and monitoring the conservation plans.

 

6)   We suggest carrying out continued dialogues to get public support and resolve potential conflicts in conservation. (Table 5 and 6 list all comments that we got from the expert and the public on preserving sites with high conservation value) 

 

A detailed proposal on conservation policy and strategy will later be submitted to the government.

 

Table 2

Results of the Expert Group

(Valid No. of Respondents: 36)

Average Marks

1. Tung Ping Chau

3.58

2. Hoi Ha Wan

3.33

3. Sha Lo Tung & Ping San Tsai

3.31

4,5 Tsim Bei Tsui & Sheung & Ha Pak Nai

   Luk Keng

3.22

6,7 Tai Ho

   Sha Chau & Lung Kwu Chau

3.21

8. Lai Chi Wo

3.20

9. Long Valley & Ho Sheung Heung

3.11

10.Wong Lung Hang & Tung Chung Valley

3.07

11.  Shui Hau

3.03

12.  Tai Long 4 Wan

3.02

13.  Ng Tung Chai Stream

3.01

14.  Wu Kau Tang

2.98

15.  Sham Wan, Lamma

2.97

16.  Pui O

2.94

17.  Tai O  

2.93

18.  Nam Fung Rd Woodland & Mt. Nicholson

2.89

19.  Fung Yuen

2.83

20.  Ngong Ping

2.82

 

 

Table 3

Results of the General Public Group

(Valid No. of Respondent: 2002)

Average Marks

1. Tung Ping Chau

3.26

2,3.   Tai O

Hoi Ha Wan

3.16

4,5.  Sham Wan, Lamma Island

     Tai Long 4 Wan

3.12

6. Sha Chau & Lung Kwu Chau

3.05

7,8. Luk Keng

Long Valley & Ho Sheung Heung

2.98

9. Sha Lo Tung & Ping San Tsai

2.94

10.Ng Tung Chai Stream  

2.93

11.Tsim Bei Tsui & Sheung & Ha Pak Nai

2.91

12,13 Lai Chi Wo

Pui O

2.90

14.Wu Kau Tang

2.86

15.Ngong Ping  

2.85

16.Tai Ho  

2.80

17,18 Wong Lung Hang & Tung Chung Valley

     Nam Fung Rd Woodland & Mt. Nicholson

2.79

19.Fung Yuen

2.71

20.Shui Hau

2.67

 

Table 4 Results of the Expert Group, with actual scores in each criterion.

Natural Sites

Biodiversity 

Landscape

Research & Scientific Value

Under Development Threat or Lack of Protection