A response to the South Lantau Eco-Recreation Corridor public consultation
The Hong Kong Government’s latest wheeze for developing south Lantau is a proposed “South Lantau Eco-Recreation Corridor” – which seems eco in name only.
As noted by the Sustainable Lantau Office, which has showcased the plans:
In order to collect public comments on the proposals for the Corridor, we are
currently conducting a two-month public engagement until 28 July 2024. We will optimise and refine the details of the proposals with due consideration of the views collected.
Your precious views are valuable to us
Sustainable Lantau Office
Well, here are the “precious views” I just submitted:
“Eco” in name only
The planned project [basket of projects] is “eco” in name only, using eco for greenwashing rather than being of any substance.
Zero plans for any enhancements to the natural environment/biodiversity of south Lantau; instead, only projects that will damage the environment to varying degrees.
Kind of shocking, really, this can emerge from the “Sustainable Lantau Office”, which has been operating for several years now. Yes, most staff are engineers with zero background in nature conservation, ecology etc; but should have had ample opportunities to learn by now, and show knowledge of and empathy for Lantau’s environment.
Instead, it seems SLO is more some sort of go-between, akin to paper pushing, just employing consultants as they may appear to have expertise, and then asking public [and businesses] for comments. Paid juicy salaries, for doing what exactly? [Planning developments to reap profits, mainly, perhaps; with lip service paid to sustainability?]
As a thought experiment: imagine the consultants were being paid by green groups, eco warriors – how might their plans differ?
After all, as an English saying goes, “Who pays the piper, calls the tune” – consultants must please their bosses, like most people; in this case, they perhaps anticipated a desire for development, with a veneer of “green”.
It would be interested to learn among responses: to what extent are those in favour from people anticipating financial benefits from the project? Never mind nature, how much can we profiteer?
Lazy and unoriginal ideas throughout
Chairlift, visitor centre with catering, boardwalks, education centres etc…
- There isn’t a shred of originality here! Just lazily cobbling together a bunch of ideas that are applied elsewhere, with no real thoughts or insights about Lantau itself; nothing even suggesting the consultants have taken part in any activities whatsoever, experienced issues like taking buses back to Tung Chung on busy days.
- In this regards, somewhat recalls the appalling Concept Plan for Lantau [to me, a “Concrete Plan for Lantau”] of some years ago [2004] – with ideas slapped in place as if just putting them onto a map, never mind the actual terrain etc etc.
Cheung Sha
Landmark visitor centre
It seems this idea is for a mall, maybe as per the upper Peak Tram station. For Cheung Sha, would be a monstrosity, ruining the views with “emerald green mountains” [what the heck? – ever seen in winter, seems not] and more.
Such a facility, cluster of facilities, could be well sited in the former fort in Tung Chung – helping make it a hub/springboard for Lantau exploring, even with info on the Greater Bay Area. Alas, such grander thinking is not permitted here.
Really, there are already places with catering, kayaks for rent etc at Cheung Sha. Might consider working with these, seeing what help they could use. Then retaining the rural character, something more akin to eco tourism than the HK government has ever achieved anywhere. [Have you tried Ngong Ping 360 – horrible! Nothing like an actual village anywhere in the world; and if visitors want such a thing, it is there already, no need for another anti-eco mall-monster at Cheung Sha.]
Cheung Sha Beach
News flash for the consultants and SLO, in their far-off offices with no actual experience [so it seems from proposal]: you can already stroll along the beach, it’s wonderful for this; and can readily stroll between Upper and Lower Cheung Shau. Plus can surf, kayak, sunbathe, swim; many people do so already. No need for government to come in with concreting to harm the beach and scenery!
Families can already have fun here.
Oh, and I happen to like music festivals etc; but would be suspicious the “event venue” would be another concrete monster – see above beach at Mui Wo, nowadays; lots of concreting, little use to anyone; beneficiaries little more than those contracted to do the concreting.
Cheung Sha Hillside Adventure
There is almost a good idea here, but only almost.
“uphill chairlifts” – why? This is a classic example of an idea from elsewhere being slapped onto south Lantau map. What problem is solved by such chairlifts, what benefits, from where to where? Just clueless, as if some intern in consultancy just put this down as an idea – which may be very close to the truth, with senior staff too busy working on more profitable consultancies they actually care about.
Plus: what of safety issues for chairlift? In Hong Kong we’re not even allowed electric vehicles, supposedly for safety considerations.
Shek Pik
The “rich history” here is actually rather trivial, and boring. [cf Mongol hordes pursuing emperor and entourage to south China and eventually north Lantau coast…]
Yes, there is fine scenery; and people can already visit to enjoy tranquillity, photography etc.
Round-the-reservoir trail seems ostensibly a good idea; but how walkable is this now, would such a trail entail damage? What connections to existing trails, the road to Ngong Ping? Again, seems the idea has been simply slapped on a map.
As I recall, the Shek Pik area is of archaeological interest; but the items found are hardly thrilling, would take a lot to make the coastline here seem intriguing. Plus the prison is of course ugly, making area below the dam unappealing.
Rock “Craving” by local residents and “Shek Pit” typos just help show the proposals have been slapped together with no care; just a menial task of minor importance to all involved.
Shui Hau
Facilities that “blend in” would seem good; and yet, we were told the Shek Kwu Chau Incinerator would somehow blend in, and it’s a monstrous eyesore.
Again, there is an obsession with building, building, building. Visitor centres tend to be boring, and few people bother with them [my experience in, say, country parks; and the eco centre or whatever in Ngong Ping]. Instead, should be focus on actual nature; and enhancements if possible.
Shui Hau needs a sandflat walkway like most people need a hole in the head. It’s a ridiculous idea, again by person ignorant of Shui Hau itself, including the birdlife.
This is Hong Kong’s top shorebird site outside the Deep Bay area, albeit numbers of individuals are small. Problems for these include disturbance, already significant, and the proposal calls for more visitors, with no notions whatsoever for reducing disturbance, or even seeking to reduce the crazily over the top amount of shellfish collection, much of it for fun not food.
[“steeping”, another typo; so slapdash this proposal, should be shameful]
There’s nothing about the freshwater marsh area, with the water buffalo grazing, nor the HK Birdwatching Society’s rice farming project. Again, shows nothing holistic involved in the planning here; no real in-depth knowledge of or caring about south Lantau environment and biodiversity.
Pui O
Treetop walkway – where is this for? We aren’t told; just another intern-level notion.
I believe treetop walkways can be good; but without being in a decent area at Pui O, and I really don’t know where this is, will be just another waste of money for no real benefit [other than construction companies].
Wetland – the key habitat at Pui O – is simply ignored. Just helps show what a pitiful proposal this is; ignorant and oblivious. Why is there nothing about enhancing the wetland, such as establishing small, year-round pools? Reality is just that SLO and consultants just don’t care?
And such enhancements would not be only for wildlife – and water buffalo – benefits; could establish waterbird viewing facilities along road, pathways, with information. So obvious, and I’ve proposed this years ago, mentioned to SLO multiple times. But because no one actually cares, the proposal is empty here.
Glamping has little or nothing to do with eco-tourism; go see the campsite along beach at Pui O, and you’ll see about nobody caring about the birdlife etc, just chilling out and enjoying the beach for the most part.
Land Transport
Again, suggestions are not as if anyone has actually experienced south Lantau, including buses to/from Tung Chung.
Water Transport
Ferry from urban areas to Cheung Sha, really?! Again, this indicates great ignorance of the realities; ever experienced the Mui Wo to Central ferries, noticed the schedule, who is taking the ferries?
What are the financial arrangements for such ferries?
I happen to rather like the idea of ferry transport to Cheung Sha – well used to ferries living on Cheung Chau. But not so simple as just building a pier and hoping…
Shek Kwu Chau
Really visitors to here? I’ve known it for drug rehabilitation place, hard to visit [I have been]; is this really to change so much?
Accommodation Experience
“quality holiday accommodation” – what the hell is this, anyone know?
Really, best if could be in some existing village houses, so no building work etc required. But that requires a mindset change in other levels of government, to be accepting of homestay, lodge, bed and breakfast style accommodation typical of other areas.
And there is no need for accommodation here, really; all is accessible from urban areas, making for easy day trips.
So if there is no good accommodation solution, don’t need a bad one.
Well, there you go; I don’t really expect responses, and if government wishes to railroad project components through, of course it will do so.
If more is wanted re “greener”, more holistic ideas, I’m of course available to help; already provided quite a lot of ideas for free, over the years (eg Lantau Sustainable Development Plan) – with far more knowledge of Lantau and its environment and biodiversity than pretty much all the consultants put together [if this is wrong, well let’s see some consultants’ proposals demonstrating knowledge etc].
See also on this site: Green Groups’ Responses to the Public Consultation for the South Lantau Eco-Recreation Corridor
I agree fully with all of your comments. I have lived here for 20 years now and love South Lantau just as it is – why does it need to be “improved” at all? Who is complaining and what are they trying to achieve? All beyond me.
There has been a beautiful corridor”” on Lantau many many year, the Lantau Trail, no need to damage the natural sea coast to make that kind of corridor……
Lots of valid points here…. It doesn’t seem like a cohesive plan
This is completely driven locally by landowners with vested interests in generating income for themselves and with the encouragement of more distant voices. It has nothing to do with South Lantau’s ecology nor creating tranquillity. It’s about bussing in noisy, city folk who have little or no interest in the scenery but are simply thrill seeking. This small step is simply the first in joining the financial dots between Nong Ping (that holiest of shrines that boasts a Starbucks and hawks souvenir tut) and Disneyland. And on a grander scale, the new bridge across the river to the West will whisk the sinners to and from Macau and Lantau for the so called saints. Nothing in Hong Kong will get done unless it slots into some hidden larger master plan. Just take a look at the likes of Ko Phiphi in Thailand or BOracay in the Philipinnes. Both now smothered with tourists and hotels and jet skis and para sailing and noise and bonfire parties.
The proposed ferry pier for Cheung Sha shows no knowledge of the reality of tides and water depth. Why is there no pier there already? Because the water is too shallow! And look at what happened when concrete slipways have optimistically been constructed over the years… first typhoon blows it away! As it is the sand on S Lantau beaches often disappears for weeks after typhoons.
The idea that you can have hotels, more restaurants etc on S Lantau ignores the fact that not enough workers live on Lantau to service these businesses. Why has the already gazetted Cheung Sha hotel resort never been built? Because various developers have realised that they could not provide enough local staff. And reality is visitors only come to Lantau at weekends, so no business during the week. Ask he existing restaurants… they will tell you!