Forum Replies Created
- Posts
Response to the Anonymous Poster
Friends of Hoi Ha have a track record of nearly 10 years of environmental work at Hoi Ha.
The majority of members of FOHH do not live in Hoi Ha, and they would not countenance the organisation being used for private purposes.
No members of FOHH have houses for sale in Hoi Ha
The exemptions for septic tanks (which do not exempt them from the general regulations) appear in Section 8 of the Technical Memorandum, which deals with discharges into Inland Waters. Section 9, which deals with discharges into Coastal Waters – Hoi Ha Wan – has no such exemption.
The moth is covered by Dr Roger Kendrick.
Nicola and Dave Newbery
Visitor
You, obviously, have not read the Technical Memorandum on Effluent Standards to a sufficient depth to understand what it is saying. You seem to be confusing paragraphs 8 and 9.
Paragraph 8 describes effluent standards into Inland Waters. Paragraph 8.6 does, indeed say that “the tables do not apply to household septic tanks” but goes on to say that “the general prohibitions still apply”. The “tables” referred to give the concentrations of pollutants and so the implication is that the general provisions apply irrespective of the efficiency of the septic tank system and the quality of the effluent. This information may well be of use to those campaigners wishing to limit development at Pak Sha O, which forms a catchment area for a water supply
Meanwhile, paragraph 9, which deals with “Discharges to Coastal Waters” and which applies to the Hoi Ha situation, does not contain any exemption from the regulations. Paragaph 9.1 states, quite unambiguously that “No new effuluent will be allowed:……. within 200m of the seaward boundary of a marine fish culture zone or site of special scientific interest, and within 100m of landward boundaries”.
Thus, the SCMP was quite correct in its reporting and the Govewrnment should not be allowing the siting of new septic tanks within 100 metres of Hoi Ha Wan SSSI.
David & Nicola NEWBERY
Dear Anonymous
Indeed – let’s talk facts.
Fact 1 – The statement you have made in your post concerning the 100 metre spacing and the status of applications is factually incorrect. Very few people know where the moth was found and we were present at the time. How can you claim to know?
Fact 2 – The SCMP article does not mention IUCN status.
Fact 3 – Applying the “Precautionary Principle” expounded by the Convention on Biological Diversity (to which HK is a recent signatory) and using the IUCN Red List Criteria, this species can be considered to be currently at high risk of extinction due to the small population size, the limited area of occupancy, the limited extent of occurrence and the high degree of threat (through habitat destruction of adjacent land and probable ecological impact on the site of discovery). The Moth may well qualify for IUCN Red List status and SSSI protection in the future but the recency of its discovery means that the paperwork needs to be conpleted before it can be fully protected, We are anxious to see that the moth is not lost before adequate protections can be put in place.
David & Nicola NEWBERY
