After I posted in a birding whatsapp group about issues with the Long Valley Nature Park, I was surprised at a response, sent to the whole group of over 200 members so hardly private. Well, perhaps complaints about conservation issues are indeed rather dull; yet clearly to me important. While I don’t expect much by way of results, I hope for some discussion, maybe some advocacy of ways to do some things better, even some positive developments. And hope for your participation.
Anyhoo, here are some of my endless complaints related to conservation in Hong Kong, along with ideas I’ve mooted for doing things better. Mostly – overwhelmingly, not resulting in any change for the better, but here and there some slight positives. And, however foolishly, I keep on trying and hoping – and doing so without supporting a paymaster that may not have the best interests of the natural world at heart (or – in almost all cases – any paymaster at all, for that matter!).
A few years ago, I reflected on having decided to try and help nature conservation back when the environmental movement seemed to be on the upswing; the momentum since seems to have stalled: Fightback Needed as Science and Life Support System Under Attack. Now, with Trump elected and other developments, the situation is worse, even as climate change and the sixth mass extinction continue apace.
Long Valley – don’t devastate it; improve the nature park
Around the turn of the century, I supported the Hong Kong Birdwatching Society in opposing the KCR’s plans to build a viaduct over Long Valley, a prime local hotspot for birds. A small voice, indeed.
More recently, as work was underway on a nature park, I tried emailing the Civil Engineering and Development Department with concerns the work was not ideal. No changes.
Once the nature park was opened, late 2024, it was clear that there were indeed issues, but also potential to change for the better, with some easy wins possible. More emails from me; no result. For loads more dullness, see on this site, Long Valley Nature Park more duo-diversity than biodiversity yet potential for improvements.
Concerns re destruction of part of San Tin fishponds
Response to EIA: Comment on Environmental Impact Assessment on San Tin Technopole Project that will Destroy a Substantial Area of Deep Bay Fish Ponds.
Also alternative idea: Build San Tin Technopole on Solid Ground and Create a Wetland Park that Reduces Floods in nw Hong Kong and Shenzhen.
Nam Sang Wai threatened for over three decades
The Nam Sang Wai wetland, within Deep Bay wetland, has been targeted for development since the 1990s, initially with a golf course plus luxury housing, later with luxury housing. While the developer also plans wetland enhancement work outside the concreting zone, the plans have met widespread opposition, including from green groups.
I’ve lent a little support to the opposition; even briefly suggested alternative without concreting; mentioned in rather lengthy look at the saga of Nam Sang Wai.
Hong Kong Wetland Park – tiny habitat though huge monies spent
Also in the Deep Bay area, the Wetland Park is an odd place: cost lots of money, yet only a small part of it is wetland that is attractive to birds: Hong Kong Wetland Park Weird but not Wonderful; Ecotourism with Minimal Eco.
Mai Po has few visitors; Deep Bay conservation could be much improved
Yes, Mai Po is world class; but wetland reserves can also host many visitors, who bring revenue and boost support for conservation. More could be done for conservation elsewhere in Deep Bay, again with visitors in mind. See my utterly fanciful Masterplan for a More Sustainable Future for Mai Po, Deep Bay Wetland and Beyond.
Excessive slope vegetation clearances on Cheung Chau
I’ve made a few complaints about this issue; most recently:
The government is supposedly promoting greening of slopes – see for instance: Greening and Landscape Treatment on Slopes
Partly as plant roots can help bind soil, keep slopes in place.
Yet here on Cheung Chau, I too often see slopes simply cleared of vegetation that does grow.
Such as slopes above and near Cheung Chau Sports Ground – as in photo here, with contractors at work cutting the grass, small trees, whatever had started growing. [This happens periodically here; seems just foolish to me!]
Also by a “garden” [government one], southeast Cheung Chau: just pathetic growth of plants here. I’ve complained about this before, been told improvements would happen, but still terrible, with severe soil erosion.
It seems government hires contractors who hate nature, so are happy to cut all vegetation for “slope cleaning”; just get the money for this.
Why not something smarter?
– like allow some small trees to grow; can later help shade paths too. Also just trim grass etc – so paths are kept clear; no need to just destroy, destroy, destroy!
Smarter still: employ some gardeners; aim for gorgeous slopes we can all admire, attracting butterflies and birds too. Too much to ask?
Some years ago, I had a reply from government department, agreeing there was more clearance than necessary. Led to some more bushes etc being allowed to grow, in turn attracting butterflies, small birds like warblers and white-eyes.
Excessive tree felling at Ho Man Tin
Ho Man Tin is a hotspot for migratory birds. I saw photos of trees being felled on slopes of a service reservoir, and sent emails to the Water Supplies Department, complaining. Helped lead to the contractor taking more care, leaving more trees that flycatchers, warblers and many more birds feed and shelter in.
An email from the Water Supplies Dept included:
To duly minimize the adverse impacts of routine maintenance works on the local habitat for migratory birds and functions of drainage channels, we have reviewed our current practice for works at the concerned slope and reminded our contractor to carry out trimming of overgrown vegetation mainly near drainage channels and slope access during maintenance works.
After this a friend who knows Ho Man Tin birding posted on Facebook:
As You can see the 1st photo taken in 2/3/2021! The cutting tree action of Water Services Department (WSD) have a great impact to ecological lives of the Hill!
The others photos shown HMT get back to about original condition now!
It is a fruitful action from a group of Green people including DocMartin Williams nonstop writing the letters to WSD … …
Multiple missives regarding Lantau issues plus ideas for the better
Wooh – Lantau! Crikey; I must have made comments ad infinitum about plans and actual developments threatening and harming various parts of this wonderful island, especially lowland areas.
Back in 2004, when the government published a Concept Plan for Lantau, I dissed this as a concrete plan, including in a letter to the South China Morning Post – published with the title Concrete, not nature, appears Lantau priority. You can read it on this site: Concrete Plan for Lantau.
Rather than simply complain, the next year I followed up with Lantau Sustainable Development Plan:
This Alternative Concept Plan therefore includes suggestions for development projects on Lantau. These projects are within the framework of views of Keep Lantau Beautiful, an alliance of groups concerned about the future of Lantau.
Lantau Sustainable Development Plan
In 2016 – as the government released a further strategy for developing Lantau, I submitted this plan to the Legislative Council, along with an introduction including:
Seems this is politically motivated, and perhaps with some pushing from engineers keen to Carry On Concreting, along with various businesses seeking to exploit Lantau for profits.
Part of motivation seems to be justifying the HKZM Bridge; along with aiming to profit from the anticipated hordes who will arrive on buses.
Would be interesting to learn: to what extent is Lantau Development Advisory Committee really driving the strategy; or more a talking shop and rubber stamp?
7 meetings in two years!
Also, what of the supposed “balance” between development and conservation?
Does this mean as much money to be spent, as many resources used, on protecting and enhancing natural environment as on concreting? If not, what is the meaning, or just fine sounding wording?
Comments to Panel on Development
For special meeting on 16 April 2016: Proposed Development Strategy for Lantau
At one point, I received a positive response from the Sustainable Lantau Office, of the Civil Engineering and Development Department; saying they too hoped for nature tourism as a way forward for Lantau. Even made a couple of short films for the SLO, on Tung O Ancient Trail [Tung Chung to Tai O], and the coastal hike from Tai O to Shek Pik.
Last year (2024), on with the complaints – and ideas for better ways forward:
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.
A response to the South Lantau Eco-Recreation Corridor public consultation
I also helped draft and supported Green Groups’ Responses to the Public Consultation for the South Lantau Eco-Recreation Corridor.
Short film I made, supported by David Jack.
Not fond of ideas for Kau Yi Chau artificial islands
Quite a bit of guff about this project, which would involve filling in areas of sea at huge expense: Kau Yi Chau Artificial Islands project off east Lantau Hong Kong not sustainable?
Opposing Waste Incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau
I became heavily involved in efforts to oppose construction of a mega waste incinerator on an artificial platform by Shek Kwu Chau, southwest Hong Kong.
There’s plenty of info on this website if you’re curious. I summarised some of the reasons against the incinerator in an article, including:
First, remember that adopting incineration to reduce the volume of waste sent to landfills is not a new idea for Hong Kong. This was a strategy adopted from the late 1960s, leading to four waste incineration plants being built. Yet to the Environmental Protection Department (EPD), science showed incineration was a threat to human health.
“Incinerators are a major source of pollution in the urban areas,” reported a 1989 government white paper on pollution. “They account for approximately 18% of all respirable particulates emitted into the atmosphere of the territory and can be a source also of trace quantities of highly toxic substances.” The incinerators were phased out, with the last of them – at Kwai Chung – ceasing operation in 1997.
Recently, there has been a remarkable about face in the EPD’s attitude to waste incineration. This is exemplified by assistant director Elvis Au, who has boldly claimed that in the planned incinerator, high temperatures of at least 850°C can completely destroy organic pollutants.
Alas, this claim is not true. The chemistry of incinerators is complex, and their emissions may include 200 or more kinds of organic compounds, including known carcinogens.
Bad Science and Hong Kong’ Rubbish Strategy
Well, the incinerator construction took place anyway; and already seems FUGLY rather than with a design to suit the location (a beautiful offshore area south of Lantau), as had been forecast by proponents.
Meanwhile, recycling in Hong Kong seems lacklustre, and another incinerator is planned, for the northwest New Territories.
Too much plastic waste in the sea
Having become involved in the incinerator, I also became more aware of issues with plastic pollution in the sea. Plus I readily observe this way too often, as I live on a small island, Cheung Chau.
I made further complaints etc; also started a Facebook group, which initially attracted strong interest: Hong Kong Marine Lap Sap IS Serious – so What to Do About It?
Grandly titled Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for Hong Kong all plan but little action
Back in 2016, the Hong Kong government published the Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for Hong Kong (BSAP), as required by the United Nations. I took part in early discussions, especially on wildlife conservation, but gave up as I felt they were going nowhere. Christine Loh had announced during meetings this would be about “mainstreaming biodiversity” throughout the government. Yet after the plan was published, well, pretty much crickets… I’ve written about this, and the importance of biodiversity for all of us: Protecting biodiversity should involve all Hong Kong people.
See Hong Kong Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for official information, including on BSAP being updated.
Upset Wannabe Shalotung Developer
Shalotung is one of the loveliest places in Hong Kong; but was also a “conservation battleground”, as a developer planned a golf course with housing, and then simply luxury housing. I thought these terrible ideas; surely sent something off during a consultation.
This is also one of few places where I worked, briefly, as an environmental consultant, focused on a bird survey as part of an EIA process. During this, I met the wannabe developer, talked with him, and told him “Well you do own one of the best areas of biodiversity in Hong Kong,” at which point he stopped talking to me and went to wash his car. For next round of surveys, birds weren’t included…
Happily, Shalotung was spared from development: Renewal for Shalotung, Hong Kong’s conservation battlefield.
Established and running Hong Kong Outdoors
What better way to make endless complaints than set up a website? But seriously, I established this site with the aim of doing something useful for conservation; often “softer” like nature tourism – promoting hiking, birding etc. Also various issues mixed in.
Not a hugely popular site, but quite a lot of people have visited over the years. Sometimes signed joint statements by local green groups, supporting conservation of places and species in Hong Kong.
Over zealous pesticide spraying versus mosquitoes killing other wildlife too
In 2013, I sent the first of what became quite many emails to the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, complaining about excessive pesticide spraying versus mosquitoes, which I believed was adversely impacting Cheung Chau wildlife. Other insects were being killed too; and the pesticides were often sprayed on plants, even the ground, rather than targeting their breeding sites. See Excessive Mosquito Control Devastating Cheung Chau Wildlife.
The situation worsened in late 2018, in response to a dengue fever outbreak that especially impacted Hong Kong. The next year, with the outbreak over [the vector mosquitoes are active in the warmer months, and have short lifespans]. I sent more emails, including information from studies conducted elsewhere in the world.
More emails followed. These have led to responses, some by email, others phone calls to me – with FEHD officers telling me they don’t want to impact the biodiversity; and of switch to also using btc toxin, which targets mosquito larvae.
Yet, while there’s way less fogging [blasting a mist of pesticide over nearby places], the contractor’s crews have tended to keep on spraying – chiefly near mosquito monitoring “pots”, and still squirting at even just bare ground.
Surely not just a Cheung Chau issue; spraying and fogging could be seen in urban parks – can’t have any complaints about mosquito bites!, and may be a significant reason that Kowloon Park is no longer a hotspot for songbird migrants, especially insectivores.
This is among issues I raised on the whatsapp group; hoped the Hong Kong Birdwatching Society could do a little, but was told they have no time as no funding specifically for this.
Role in Save Our Country Parks
I was active in Save Our Country Parks, an ad hoc grouping of local conservationists including from ngos, aimed at protecting country parks and “enclaves” (areas at least partly surrounded by but excluded from country parks). Plenty of meetings, discussions, also some events, including heading to country park to record support from visitors.
Places of concern included Sai Wan, which became included in Sai Kung East Country Park; also Hoi Ha, which I gave a presentation about with points including:
protecting and allowing access to the countryside was very important for the health and well being of people, and this was supported by research. It was particularly important as a space for relief in the busy living environment in Hong Kong. In fact, more and more Hong Kong people were visiting the country parks during weekends;
(h) there were examples of well preserved villages in Cape Town. The heritage and natural landscape were both preserved and the villages were thriving. It was a pity that there was no strategic planning for the countryside in Hong Kong and the Board might need to take up its role in this regard. Existing villages should be preserved and allowed to thrive in its natural setting. Developers should not be allowed to build large-scale housing developments in CPEs. There was an example of such large scale housing development on Cheung Chau that had remained largely unoccupied after completion
Town Planning Board meeting, re Outline Zoning Plan for Hoi Ha
Video I made, to support protection of Hoi Ha and Pak Sha O in the northwest Sai Kung Peninsula.
Hong Kong Outdoors was among groups signing a Joint Statement: Green groups refuse to participate in the destruction of Country Parks.
Also school lecture: “Hong Kong’s Country Parks: the Glories and Threats” by Dr Martin Williams Guest speaker from Cambridge University; and for the Royal Geographical Society: Hong Kong’s Country Parks: the Glories and Threats.
Advocating sustainable tourism
I believe nature tourism can be a good way of supporting local communities so they in turn help protect the environment, and took part in a Sustainable Tourism Task Force established under the Business Environment Council. Led to me helping with a map on sustainable tourism in Hong Kong; also writing and partly photographing a booklet – Discover Hong Kong Nature – on exploring Hong Kong’s wilder side, published by the Hong Kong Tourism Board.
Better to say We’re Screwed so Fuck It!?
Well, the above is not a complete list; but a whole lot of dull complaints, plus ideas, over the years – and little by way of tangible results.
There’s plenty to show the natural environment is in bad shape, and getting worse: the sixth mass extinction is underway, with changing baselines to some extent obscuring the picture over time; plus climate change may be accelerating, already with devastating consequences. Ideally, we humans would take action to safeguard earth, our life support system.
But unlike superhero movies, there’s no small group of saviours coming to our rescue; action would surely require a huge groundswell of support for the natural world. Instead, the movie Don’t Look Up is more appropriate, including with too much by way of media and politicians downplaying the dangers, even downright lying.
Perhaps, then, a more logical choice for anyone knowing about biodiversity is to figure, to hell with it, and just reap what’s on offer, even if it involves greenwashing, supporting dodgy projects and so forth. At worst, become a “biostitute” as a friend of mine termed people who produced reports simply for the money, no matter the consequences. And after all, why not?