In March 2025, WWF Hong Kong published a report, The State of Hong Kong Biodiversity 2025, and an accompanying Hong Kong Terrestrial Biodiversity Hotspot Map; you can download them via Hong Kong Biodiversity. This entailed considerable work; as a press release notes:
WWF-Hong Kong, in association with the Hong Kong Bird Watching Society, Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden, Outdoor Wildlife Learning Hong Kong, and local researchers, have released a new report titled ‘The State of Hong Kong Biodiversity 2025’ today
The new report ‘The State of Hong Kong Biodiversity 2025’ reveals over 25% of species in Hong Kong are at risk of local extinction
The report assessed 886 species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, freshwater fishes, butterflies, dragonflies and freshwater crustaceans, and found that 232 of these are of high or moderate risk of local extinction. High risk species include Chinese Pangolin, Bonelli’s Eagle, Chinese Three-banded Box Turtle (aka Golden Coin Turtle), Giant Spiny Frog, and a dragonfly known only by the Latin name, Fukienogomphus choifongae. This is the first report I know of to highlight such a high proportion of species being threatened with local extinction; however, it is by no means the first to cover threats to species and habitats.
Protection of lowland habitats of paramount importance – as emphasised before
To anyone familiar with Hong Kong conservation, it should come as no surprise that:
This study highlights that the protection, restoration and sustainable management of lowland habitats are of the utmost importance and urgency for conservation of Hong Kong’s biodiversity.
Even the map showing 27 threatened biodiversity hotspots seems somewhat familiar, echoing previous reports, discussions and maps – while the report does not mention these, so a reader might think the problems have been newly identified.
For instance, in 2004 the government published a New Conservation Policy, which listed 12 Priority Sites for Enhanced Conservation. Though there is only some overlap with the new 27 at-risk sites, these were similar in being primarily lowland areas, and all outside the country park system, albeit several were nearly or fully encircled by land designated as country park. Later, such places, known as country park enclaves, became the focus of conservation interest, as in the Country Park Enclaves webpage by the Conservancy Association, and in the Country Parks Investigation Report by WWF Hong Kong. The 2017 Policy Address included some existing and upcoming sites for conservation, and noted a focus on Lantau:
To underpin the sustainable development and conservation of Lantau, the Government will implement rural conservation pilot projects in areas such as Tai O, Shui Hau and Pui O.
Some progress over the years yet widespread threats remain
There have been some positive developments for lowland areas and enclaves. For instance, a land swap meant a wannabe developer of Shalotung could build elsewhere, Sai Wan on the Sai Kung Peninsula has been incorporated into country park, Long Valley has become a nature park, and a revitalisation project is underway at Lai Chi Wo in the northeast New Territories. But as this new report shows, lowlands and their wildlife species are still threatened overall.
Sometimes the threats involve planned developments of housing complexes and more, as with fishponds by Deep Bay. More typically, perhaps, areas are suffering piecemeal projects that are individually small but could lead to something akin to death by a thousand cuts – such as the former paddyfields at Pui O on Lantau.
I remember hearing that one barrier to protecting, say, the priority sites for conservation is that the government is loathe to purchase the land from owners that are often property developers. High land prices in Hong Kong would clearly be a deterrent; perhaps also the troubles of determining fair prices.
Instead, much of the protection relies on zoning, which should help safeguard areas of rich biodiversity from concreting, yet is open to challenges. The government did place hopes on public-private partnerships, which would involve regulated developments within priority sites by companies that would also provide funds to protect the ecologically more valuable areas of these sites. While the idea seemed good, it has rarely worked in practice.
The new WWF report’s recommendations include exploring ways to involve landowners in conservation of their lands. However, the focus is on improved zoning, and preventing excessive development, as in the first key recommendation:
The biodiversity hotspots identified in this study should be designated as “no-go” areas where no large-scale development (i.e., projects with a footprint of over 5ha, or housing a population of over 5,000 referencing to the usual limit of transitional housing project) would be permitted, unless it is deemed unavoidable with a strong and legitimate justification such as overriding public interest.
How wonderful if the “Government officials, researchers, environmental consultants, green groups and other interested parties” whom the report targets – along with developers – all agreed these recommendations are worthwhile, and began implementing them to the best of their abilities. More likely, perhaps, there will be limited progress, and ongoing overall declines in lowland habitat quality and biodiversity.
Tigers but no dolphins
As I wrote this, it occurred to me the report only covers terrestrial biodiversity, even though this is not specified in the title. No dolphins, porpoises, corals and so forth, which are also significant members of Hong Kong ecosystems.
Then, while no listing can be perfect, it seems to me there are some oddities in species highlighted. Especially mammals, with Tiger, Leopard, Clouded Leopard, Red Fox and Large Indian Civet illustrated even though they are all locally extinct. And mammals are “non-volant”, which I had to look up: it means they don’t fly, so bats aren’t mentioned.
Among birds, I’d have been inclined to categorise Dalmatian Pelican and Common Shelduck as locally extinct, never mind the potential for them to rarely visit, more as vagrants nowadays rather than regular in winter. And while habitat degradation is given as the cause of their declines, perhaps climate change is a more likely reason: they no longer fly so far south for the winter.
But the main thing. of course, is that such a high proportion of local wildlife species is threatened; so, what are we going to do about it?