In the movie The Blues Brothers, an enthusiastic live music bar owner is asked about the kinds of music played there. “Oh we got both kinds of music,” he replies. “Country … and western.”
And after my recent first visit to Long Valley Nature Park in north Hong Kong, after it opened following perhaps four years of work on supposedly upgrading the habitats, that rather echoes my impressions, but here we’re talking of biodiversity. [While to indicate I’m not simply being wise after the event, and if you can tolerate lots of back and forth info, see Concerns re Work Creating Long Valley Nature Park in 2021]. Posting here so people might see if it’s all codswallop [nonsense], and the nature park is perfect as is; or if there is scope for significant improvements without too much further work. No expectations; can but try….
Summary of Suggestions
This is a long post, sorry! So it’s worth giving a short summary of main suggestions, which may well benefit birdlife at Long Valley, in turn making it more appealing for visitors, importantly including people who have little or no birdwatching experience, so they can have a rewarding visit.
Main one is to create more areas of shallow muddy water, suiting sandpipers;
Ideally, towards the northeast, consider demolishing some of the bunds [small embankments between ponds] to create larger ponds, with small islands with muddy shorelines.
Less manicured. Are those invasive grasses really worse than having bare sides to paths?
Establish a small, shallow pool outside the birdwatching hut.
Well, one or more may be worth a try. I’ve been told of Long Valley using “adaptive management”, which involves making some changes, see what happens. So over time, may see improvements; hope so!
And as a brief addition: is it worth considering a floating platform or two, in case birds like Little Ringed Plover nest there, and others find useful for resting on? How about restricting access to some areas on certain days, so birds can have quiet places?
Habitats not so Diverse
The park website says:
Through habitat management and eco-friendly farming practice, Long Valley provides home for diverse wildlife. Long Valley Nature Park has opened in November 2024. Come and experience this unique wetland habitat and appreciate its biodiversity.
Yet instead of “biodiversity”, I found a remarkable lack of diversity in habitats – mostly rice fields, plus a lot of ponds that were mostly too deep for the sandpipers and snipe that formerly occurred in numbers, instead supporting many longer-legged, Black-winged Stilts. [Yes, there are some ponds suiting sandpipers and snipe; but a handful only, so these birds are concentrated into these areas, with their shallow muddy margins, small islands.]
View from the birdwatching hide, which is akin to a folly: only for show. A shallow pool outside could be way, way better – so obvious it’s amazing there isn’t one.
Emails Back and Forth… …
I sent this email to the park website:
Yesterday, my first visit since the renovation and reopening. While not as bad as some of us feared, rather struck me there’s more monodiversity than biodiversity now: great if you like eating rice seeds; or you’re a Black-winged Stilt. Tougher if you’re a Yellow Wagtail, Red-throated Pipit, Wood Sandpiper, or even a bulbul or starling. Too bad no birders etc involved in the project!
And there’s a nice new birdwatching hide, looking at nothing much in particular; like an olde style English folly. [a friend just joked, with other birders laughing at this, “The hide is for watching feral pigeons”]
Overall then, years of work, maybe millions spent, and Long Valley value for biodiversity decreased.
Even grass cutting alongside paths is detrimental; reduces foraging habitat etc.
If you’d like ideas for improvements, I’m sure many people would be happy to recommend some.
Here is the reply:
Thank you for your email providing us your views regarding the Long Valley Nature Park (LVNP).
The development of the LVNP aims to mitigate the ecological impacts arising from the development of the Kwu Tung North and Fanling North New Development Areas as well as to conserve and enhance the ecological value of the wetland. Our general strategy on habitat management in the LVNP is to maintain a mosaic of wet and dry agricultural land that support a diversity of wildlife. As at now, some 90 plant species were planted in creating about 15 kinds of wetland and dry agricultural land habitats. The habitats are also managed in a way that they would be rotated spatially and temporally according to management and conservation needs.
Planting of paddy rice is a key conservation measure in the LVNP for providing food resources for the critically endangered Yellow-breasted Bunting and other granivorous birds (e.g. various bunting species, munias and doves). Waterbirds, e.g. Greater Painted-snipes and Wood Sandpiper, also make use of this habitat for roosting, foraging and even breeding when the water level is suitable for them. Paddy field also serves as foraging and nursery grounds for amphibians and other wetland-associated species. Other kinds of habitats, e.g. marsh, shallow water habitat and wet agricultural fields, are also maintained to attract different wildlife.
As part of the habitat management measures, grass cutting is conducted in the fields and along field bunds as and when necessary to control the growth of invasive alien species (e.g. Para Grass and Narrow-leaved Cat-Tail). Grass cutting is performed regularly along major footpaths in the LVNP, but is kept to a minimum in most areas of the LVNP in particular within the Biodiversity Zone for providing shelters for wildlife.
Concerned non-governmental organisations and experts such as the Conservancy Association, the Hong Kong Bird Watching Society and Green Power, etc. were engaged in the design, planning and construction stages of the LVNP. We treasure their professional advice, knowledge and experience on the management of the LVNP, and would certainly continue our collaboration with these organisations.
Should you have other suggestions, you are most welcome to contact me.
from Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department
I posted this to a HK birding whatsapp group, after also making comments as above a few days earlier. This was a reply:
I’m not sure what you expect Martin? And to be honest, your endless complaints are rather dull.
By Paul Leader, who is director and co-founder, Asia Ecological Consultants; he noted later, on seeing this post – and posting link to this post to the whatsapp group, that it was a “personal message” to the group, and I’ve been told it was “in confidence”; yet it seemed to me very public, especially given there are over 200 members of the group. I responded:
Well. I did support conservation of Long Valley way back, which may have been dull, but I believe worthwhile. And now I believe improvements are possible, even if I don’t expect them.
Well, I didn’t expect to be slagged off like this; not even an acknowledgement my post may have been dull, but was well meaning, nor any ideas for improvements at Long Valley…
Former Plans for Railway Viaduct Would have Devastated Long Valley
Given this utterly negative remark from Paul Leader, I think it is worth noting that he did not support conservation of Long Valley way back; quite the contrary, when his company was engaged as a consultant for the KCRC as it planned a viaduct/viaducts across Long Valley, for the Sheung Shui to Lok Ma Chau spur line, and argued in favour of the project, as noted here: https://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/english/content/files/appealboard_2000.html, along with an area where habitats would be created as compensation. As I recall, this contrasted with most members of the Hong Kong birding community, who strongly opposed the highly controversial project; their opposition was crucial in eventually leading to the KCR building the spur line with a tunnel under Long Valley (I did write in support of efforts to protect Long Valley; a small voice, but didn’t just sit back). Quite a tussle between project proponents and opponents!
See here, say, for Hong Kong Birdwatching Society response to the Environmental Impact Assessment; and the society’s Formal objection regarding the Sheung Shui – Lok Ma Chau Spur Line. The project was discussed in a meeting of the Advisory Council on the Environment, with minutes available here; a member remarked “No one, not even the consultant, could say in definite terms whether the mitigation measures would work.” Also see Lok Ma Chau spur line EIA report rejected, which includes:
the DEP [Director of Environmental Protection] has concluded that the construction of the spur line is likely to cause adverse environmental impacts to Long Valley which is an area of high ecological value with a high diversity of birds
If you’re interested, maybe also see this from the EPD: Sheung Shui to Lok Ma Chau Spur Line – Reasons for not approving the EIA Report and not issuing an Environmental Permit. In the event, the tunnel under Long Valley meant problem solved, albeit at higher cost. Comically, to me, the KCR then created and displayed posters [in stations?], telling of protecting Long Valley – with image of the area at bottom, and flying in the sky a Red-crowned Crane – which is an iconic species of east Asia, but has never been recorded in Hong Kong.
Can argue whether the viaduct should have gone ahead; and then the wetland compensation area would indeed have been better than Long Valley was at the time. But this was uncertain; and was something I did not agree with, believing it’s not so simple to just create good habitats, especially when there is an existing area. So now we have the current situation, with the nature park; and I’d hoped Paul Leader might have done better regarding my comments than to just brand them as rather dull in front of over 200 people, and not give more insights – fascinating, intriguing, inspiring, upbeat!, at least hint at providing better – behind the scenes – to AFCD.
Most importantly, I think: given the overall birding community’s pivotal role in safeguarding Long Valley from the viaduct project, I believe birders should have some say in the nature park. So I send info, ideas; but what about you if you’re a birder? Maybe you think my notions are barking mad, or the park is perfect as is, or you have other ideas; if so, could send to AFCD via the Long Valley Nature Park website; and please let me know, maybe via message, or comment below.
Suggestions for Changes for Better in the Nature Park
Anyhoo, along with my purportedly dull endless complaints, I do also make attempts to suggest changes for the better, and [in January 2025, responding to the above email] emailed AFCD:
Of course, I’m aware of much of the info in your email.
Sadly, larger area of rice has not led to sizeable numbers of Yellow-breasted Buntings; or individual buntings overall.
Does seem the area suiting paintedsnipe and Wood Sandpipers is really small as a proportion of the overall site.
But perhaps much of design was by engineers, with not too much input from green groups?
As to suggestions:
– Main one is to create more areas of shallow muddy water, suiting sandpipers; I saw too many ponds that were suitable for stilts, but not shorter legged sandpipers, snipe etc.
I don’t know how easy such changes would be; don’t have to be all at once.
– Ideally, towards the northeast, consider demolishing some of the bunds to create larger ponds, with small islands with muddy shorelines.
These could benefit a range of birds; better for those sandpipers and snipe, but could attract ducks, even spoonbills… [With places they could be further away from humans strolling along the paths.]
Could aim “higher” in terms of bird diversity. See what fishponds, for instance, attract… [as at San Tin and elsewhere, just a few kilometres away]
– Less manicured. Are those invasive grasses really worse than having bare sides to paths?
As you’ll know, Long Valley previously had areas of rather wild vegetation; rank grass, small shrubs and more. Bluethroats, warblers and other birds in these.
And beyond advice from employees of ngos, there is expertise in the birding community, say, that could be drawn upon.
Might even have a site visit with some who are interested; perhaps including experience in managing wetland habitats…
After all, when Long Valley was saved from the MTR viaduct project, it was largely due to quite many local birdwatchers, not just a few individuals who put the case for conservation together.
Nor would having more birds simply benefit hardcore birders and bird photographers; I noticed several local visitors who had come to look, and who could also enjoy having more highly visible birds like egrets, herons, ducks and kingfishers to see.
– even create a nice pool outside the “birdwatching hide”, so there are birds for people to watch from it, instead of it being more a place to shelter from sun and rain!
Again, not with any real hope of substantial change.
22 January 2025: just sent this to AFCD:
I re-visited Long Valley yesterday, and was again struck by the lack of bird diversity, which surely reflects lack of biodiversity.
You and your colleagues will be well aware of such issues; bequeathed to you by engineers who failed to really consult those green groups whose advice you treasure, or others who actually know and care about birds and other wildlife. Hence, so much work, but biodiversity reduced…
As an English phrase goes, you have to make the most of a bad job.
Which doesn’t mean there isn’t great potential for significant improvements.
As to that lack of bird diversity: I saw maybe just 3 Wood Sandpipers; maybe 20 Common Snipe at just two ponds [with islets], zero Painted Snipe; heard just 1 Dusky Warbler, didn’t note even any bulbuls in the nature park, or shrikes, or mynas/starlings feeding in the area.
Could have unlucky visits to Long Valley before; but I reckon about guaranteed to find 20 plus Wood Sandpipers, with this species in several places; also various small birds like Dusky Warbler.
Oh, and no buntings seen/heard by me either; I met a bird photographer who had seen 1 Little Bunting.
Photos here help illustrate issues you’re aware of.
A good pond for birds, with mudflat, long grass around shallow margins. Rare type of pond.
A poor pond for birds, with relatively deep, and uniformly deep, water. Abundant type of pond.
The “birdwatching hut” with no birds to watch. As the guy I talked to noted, “ridiculous”.
Drone shot from just outside park shows the manicured nature of the area; farming tends to be intensive in the farmed plots, leaving little/nothing for nature.
Almost no cover for warblers, or for buntings to rest and hide in. [The individuals of locally rare Black-headed, Red-headed and Crested buntings were – unusually – keeping to within a rice paddy, on the ground, when I went before; I figure to hide from raptors like a Besra. Yesterday, a man was cutting the rice short, so the cover will be at least mostly gone; not a safe place for such birds?]
Can also see the mosaic of rather useless small ponds in northeast.
I expect no one can explain why ponds like these are so small, and so uniform in nature. Other than being engineers’ idea of wetlands, without any iota of “ecowisdom”.
I hope you and your colleagues can make improvements. [But I have rock bottom expectations!]
“Welcome” Suggestions Ignored and Side-stepped
And my rock bottom expectations were met, in emailed reply from AFCD:
Dear Dr. Williams,
Thank you for your email again providing us your views regarding the Long Valley Nature Park (LVNP).
You may wish to know that one of the major objectives for establishing the LVNP is to maintain the traditional farming practices that contributed to the ecological value and biodiversity of the LVNP. In this regard, an Agriculture Zone of 11 hectare had been set aside for farmers to continue their farming operation. With reference to the wet agricultural crops planted before development of the LVNP, we continued to plant paddy rice, Chinese arrowhead, water chestnut, lotus, water lily, water spinach, watercress, etc. in the LVNP. While minor enhancement works such as restoration of wetland, demolition of substandard temporary structures and enhancement of irrigation channel were conducted during the construction period, the general open setting of agricultural fields and landscape remain largely the same after the development of the LVNP.
To provide diverse habitats for wildlife, ponds of different water depths and profiles are maintained in the LVNP which suit a range of water birds from sandpipers and snipes to stilts and ducks. Bird islands are also maintained in some shallow water ponds to enhance the habitat heterogeneity and provide shelters for birds to rest and reproduce.
We have been conducting ecological monitoring in the LVNP to evaluate the effectiveness of our habitat management work. In the past three years, the annual number of bird species recorded in the LVNP has remained stable. Take Greater-painted Snipes as an example, we recorded an increase in the number of nest of this species in recent years and a high count of about 40 individuals was recorded from a single field in January 2025. Your observation of Wood Sandpiper was comparable to the mean weekly aggregate count of this species in Long Valley in January from 2005-2020 according to “The Avifauna of Hong Kong” (https://avifauna.hkbws.org.hk/species/0100/015200).
Should you have other suggestions, you are most welcome to contact me.
Regards, Kevin Ho Nature Park Officer/Management Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department
I’ve just replied [11 February 2025]:
Well, you did say suggestions welcome – yet you chose to largely ignore, sidestep them, along with my comments. [Makes it seem like you were lying in saying suggestions welcome.]
Again, with info that I’m mostly aware of.
Restoration of “wet land” may seem to engineers to be same as restoring wetland.
– to them, maybe swimming pools are wet land.
You’ve experienced major differences between values to birds of various wet areas at Long Valley.
Ducks? I mentioned potential for having areas where somewhat shyer birds like these can maintain some distance from people.
Ignored; so can expect ducks to not linger – is that the case now, maybe seen briefly, soon gone.
Likewise a whole host of other wetland birds; right now, they need relatively extreme tolerance of people, or to use the few suitable hiding places.
Greater paintedsnipe increase good, but not massive given all the work, monies spent etc.
As to around 3 Wood Sands, still seems low compared to Avifauna chart, given:
//The chart shows mean weekly counts, which shows around 20 birds for Jan-early Feb. So for each weekly period in each year, what is the aggregate (which for a single site means the peak) count. Then work out the average over the period 2005-2020. So it sounds like 3 birds is, indeed, puny [[quoting word I’d used]. // [info to me]
I just saw this fb post with r-h bunting, noting it hides on/near ground as nowhere to safely perch by the rice field – something I’d observed.
See also my yellow-breasted bunting from a few years ago; such “messy” vegetation is scarcer now, with more manicured look, more intensive farming..
Those suggestions I gave, you opt to ignore, remain my suggestions/recommendations. They are clearly not welcome!!!
While even simple brush pile or two, with branches piled up, may help as cover for some small birds; while allow time for some vegetation to grow.
Ideas to Green Power
Local ngo Green Power is working on habitats for biodiversity at Long Valley Nature Park – using “adaptive management”. I’ve sent ideas here too. Including:
I went yesterday;
Especially good places where paddies with soil just tilled ready for rice planting
– busy with egrets, pond herons, sandpipers, wagtails…
Wondered if possible to “stagger” rice timing, so there are more often paddies in this stage.
– would also mean differences in rice being ready to eat.
Asked a guy, [Sanchow if I caught spelling right], and he said it’s hard enough getting timing right as it is.
If possible, it could be useful to do this for other ponds, too, even where no rice planting.
– and monitor results [are Sanchow and others also keeping note of where birds go, and what the conditions are]
Quiet place possible?
Takes effort etc to remove bunds, make larger area with central part that’s hard to access, so birds that are not “super tame” can have a place.
But how about, in “biodiversity zone”, using even tape/string to restrict access to an area; see if birds like ducks take to it?
Work is still needed; to allow this, maybe create “quiet places” on a rotation basis: one spot for some days/weeks; then change so it’s another place.
Even simpler: try stick or something like that outside the useless hide, so birds like stonechat, white-throated kingfisher might perch there some time.
Hope you get to try various ideas – of your own, other people, even if none from me.
The hide could be an easy win, if a shallow pool instead of dry areas outside.
Response thus far:
we will keep in mind your observations and suggestions
Photos of birds at Long Valley Nature Park
See below for some other photos from my recent visits; there are birds to be seen, some of them very close as they are used to visitors, but not as much variety as possible by any means.
And here, bar charts of eBird sightings, for December 2018 to January 2019 [inclusive] – before the extensive work by CEDD began in late 2019; and same period 2024 to 2025. Hard to see marked differences here, on quick look; and more species in the more recent period…
