Policy Comments & Advocacy

Green Power would like to provide the following comments on the development of the Wetland Conservation Parks System (WCP System).

1. Principle and Nature of the WCP System

Ever since the announcement of the WCP System proposal in 2021, we and other major environmental groups in Hong Kong have appreciated the “proactive conservation” policy and strongly urged that the system should be an independent and prioritised conservation measure rather than a compensation tool for any development projects and that the intrinsic features of the wetlands in Deep Bay area including area, function and quality shall be safeguarded by the system but not compromised by any development plans.

However, the most updated consultation materials of the WCP System as well as those of the San Tin Technopole state clearly that the system is to “compensate for ecological and fisheries impacts arising from the development of San Tin Technopole, to achieve no-net-loss in ecological function” (AFCD & AECOM 2023) and “create environmental capacity to make up for the loss in ecological functions due to filling of some fish ponds for and ecological impact caused by the development of San Tin Technopole” (LegCo 2023). We are deeply disappointed at the Government’s decision to deviate from their committed “proactive conservation” policy, as the failure to secure the WCPs from development proposals would undermine their effectiveness in enhancing the ecological quality and biodiversity of the area, or even cause harm to these elements. Such policy deviation is manifested by the encroachment of the San Tin Technopole footprint into the previously proposed Sam Po Shue (SPS) WCP footprint, causing a shrink in the latter’s area from 520 to 338 ha and disruption of connectivity between wetlands spanning Lau Fau Shan, Mai Po, San Tin and those further east (e.g. Hoo Hok Wai WCP and Long Valley Nature Park).

We strongly urge that the compensation of any surrounding development projects should be done on top of a comprehensive WCP plan which itself conserves the area, function and continuity of wetlands in the Deep Bay area, rather than depreciate these elements. The buffer between the WCPs and any committed or planned future developments should be within the footprint of the development areas rather than encroaching into the footprint of the WCPs. In fact, “existing, committed and planned developments” listed in the consultation materials should not jeopardise the delineation of boundaries of the WCPs. In addition, the WCPs should ideally be in place before the surrounding areas are degraded by major developments to secure the ecologically sensitive areas or should be protected by measures including but not limited to legislative means to avoid encroachment by development projects if the former is not feasible.

2. Uphold the current conservation intention and legislative framework

The proposed area of the WCP System is currently governed by a suite of conservation frameworks and legislations intended to conserve the valuable wetland system in the Deep Bay area. These include but are not limited to:

i) the designation of Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site (which includes parts of the proposed SPS and Hong Kong Wetland Park Expansion Area WCPs) and its strategic management by the Government under the Ramsar Convention,

ii) statutory planning controls stipulated in Outline Zoning Plans and guidelines (i.e. Wetland Conservation Area (WCA) and Wetland Buffer Area (WBA)) under the Town Planning Ordinance (Cap. 131);

iii) water control zones in Deep Bay under the Water Pollution Control Ordinance (Cap. 358); and

iv) the statutory environmental impact assessment (EIA) process and the requirement of environmental permits for designated projects specified under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499).

The ordinances and guidelines have been effective and observed for decades and shall continue to be upheld in any current or future proposals. They should be, for example, among the core guiding principles and even more rigorously implemented when designing the boundaries, land use distribution and management of the WCPs through law enforcement. In addition, we opine that to effectively protect the WCP System from undesirable disturbances or encroaching developments, extending the coverage of existing legislation to the proposed WCP area, such as designating Restricted Areas as for Mai Po Marshes and adjoining wetlands under Cap. 170 or Special Areas as for the Hong Kong Wetland Park under the Country Parks Ordinance (Cap. 208), should be considered.

3. Development and Management

The proposed time frame of the development of the WCP System, under which SPS WCP is expected to be completed by 2031 as the first WCP, is too long to provide adequate protection to the wetland system in the Deep Bay area as prudent law enforcement is not currently in place. This is particularly apparent as a lot of vulnerable wetlands in the area, including those within WCA and WBA, have been undergoing massive destruction by illegal landfilling activities since the announcement of various development proposals in the New Territories North (CA & Greenpeace 2024). The conservation measures are not able to catch up with the speed of destruction at all.

We opine that there should be a centralised authority to be responsible for the legal and management aspects of the WCP System to avoid compromising the enforcement or management effectiveness due to bureaucracy or unclear responsibility. As past experiences showed that wetland management is highly demanding in terms of resources and dependent on robust legal and policy backup, we also strongly urge for timely allocation of resources for enforcement of existing regulations to halt ongoing environmental vandalism and for investigation on establishing new/extending existing laws to prudently protect the vulnerable wetland system during the WCP development. Other resources including funding, land, manpower and expertise shall also be secured according to clear objectives and time frames.

Conservation should be prioritised among the proposed aims and objectives of the WCP System, and such priorities should be reflected in the development and management decisions to be made when the different objectives conflict. For example, the WCPs should be appropriately zoned according to their ecological values and functions to avoid unnecessary disturbance to sensitive habitats and wildlife. Core sensitive areas should be identified and designated as “no-go” areas to bar unnecessary access and activities. Access roads for vehicles/visitors and barriers should be carefully designed to minimise disturbance during construction and operation to ecologically sensitive receivers of the WCPs. Heavy vehicles should not be allowed in the WCPs to avoid disturbing or even damaging activities such as illegal dumping in the area. Works aiming at remediating the negative impacts of floods exacerbated by developments in the same drainage catchments but will degrade or threaten the ecological and conservation values of the WCPs, such as the channelisation of rivers/streams/water channels, should not be allowed (also see Section 5 below).

4. Fisheries

While the consultation materials state that “each park shall achieve dual functions of ecological conservation and sustainable development of aquaculture at various degrees” and that “biodiversity and aquaculture in harmony” is the proposed positioning and functions of the SPS WCP, the following “Wise Use” definition of the Ramsar Handbook, “Wise Use of wetlands is the maintenance of their ecological character, achieved through the implementation of ecosystem approaches, within the context of sustainable development.”, should be applied.

The authority should consider the impacts/interaction of various types of aquacultural activities with the WCP elements (e.g. water quality, availability of food sources, occupation of floor area around wetlands) when assessing the types allowed within the WCPs. Only environmentally friendly aquaculture models should be allowed in the WCPs. Specifically, traditional fishpond operations which provide crucial food sources (e.g. trash fishes) and feeding grounds for waterbirds should be maintained. All modernised aquaculture models should be evaluated carefully and should be proven sustainable. No invasive species should be allowed to be cultivated.

5. Impacts Associated with Climate Change

Wetlands are intrinsically reservoirs for floods and carbon and their existence is essential for buffering the impacts of climate change. Extreme weather conditions including intense rainstorms are expected to occur more frequently under climate change (HKO 2023), implying the risks of associated floods would also increase. This together with the fact that the development of the Northern Metropolis will inevitably increase the overall impervious area and thus flooding risks as well as carbon emission, lead to an even stronger need for conserving wetlands in terms of both area and function.

Apart from the long-respected principle of “no-net-loss” in wetland ecological function in the Deep Bay area, we opine that under the foreseeable scenario, there is a critical need to preserve the flood-carrying capacity of all water bodies, including wetlands and waterways in the area, in an ecologically-compatible manner. In addition, securing the maximum area of pervious surfaces with soil and vegetation in development areas upstream of the WCPs would also safeguard the area from flooding risks.

The design of the habitats as well as activities in the WCP System should consider maximizing carbon sequestration and minimizing carbon emission. For example, the integrity and complexity of some wetland types (e.g. marshes) and waterway habitats and their vegetation cover should be conserved to protect the biodiversity and ecosystem function of carbon storage. The construction and operation of activities including aquaculture, education and recreation and their associated infrastructure should also be well planned in design stage to achieve carbon neutrality.

6. Pollution

Pollution from the surrounding existing, committed or future developments would also compromise the functions and performance of the WCP System. Pollution sources (e.g. garage or cargo fields) in the nearby or upstream brownfields or from the construction or operation of the Northern Metropolis, if uncleared during the development or operation of the WCPs, would impose stresses on the quality of water and soil of the WCPs. This is particularly probable as the proposed time spans of the WCP development and the associated land resumption exercise are very long. We strongly urge for appropriate phasing of the development programme as well as identification and effective removal of potential pollution sources to ensure the WCPs and the overall Deep Bay area are well protected from pollution.

Human and traffic flows during the construction and operational phases of the WCPs would also cause water and solid waste pollution if not managed in a precautionary manner. Examples include the dumping of rubbish by visitors as well as the input of pollutants from vehicles (e.g. tyre particles and leakage of gas or oil) through surface runoff into the water bodies. We opine that appropriate zonings and design of path and road systems, with possible integration of a Sustainable Urban Drainage System to protect the sensitive areas are needed.

Thank you very much for your kind attention. We look forward to your favourable decision to conserve our valuable wetland system in Hong Kong. For any inquiries, please contact the undersigned at Green Power (Tel: 3961 0200, Fax: 2314 2661, Email: info@greenpower.org.hk).