Dear members and friends,
We have received an appeal from colleagues on Lamma Island about a proposed property and marina development that threatens the survival of a number of already endangered species, including the Green Turtle pictured left.
They are seeking our support in writing letters of objection to the Town Planning Board before October 14
A sample letter is attached for your convenience.
From: David O’Dwyer, Chairman, Living Seas Hong Kong
Subject: Baroque on Lamma
The Baroque on Lamma development hasn’t died. The developer has made yet another submission to the Town Planning Board. We really need to stop this one before it is too late. A quick summary of the proposed development:
1. A huge property and marina development on the South Side of Lamma, right next to the last remaining green turtle nesting beach in Hong Kong and encompassing important terrestrial ecosystems that support indigenous species such as the Romers Tree Frog and the Green Turtle.
2. The developer is applying for rezoning from “Agriculture”, “Conservation Area”, “Coastal Protection Area” zones to “Comprehensive Development Area”
3. The developer has amended its plans to incorporate certain mitigation approaches, however these amendments are just “green washing”. This is not a suitable site
The deadline for sending in responses and comments to the Town Planning Board (TPB) at email@example.com is October 14.
I invite you all to submit comments and to show your objections to the plan. A copy of the Living Seas’s objection is appended below.
Objection from Living Seas:
“On behalf of Living Seas HK, we are writing to object to the development on Lamma as proposed by the project proponent on the basis of insufficient evidence that coral communities will not be affected and also that the construction and ongoing increase in boat traffic in the areas will cause willful disturbance to the marine turtle nesting beach at Shum Wan.
In Hong Kong established coral communities of any size are regarded as important habitat types in Hong Kong as defined in Annex 8 of EIAO-TM.
There is evidence to suggest that coral communities exist in Tung O wan and along the Ngai Tau Headland and that neither the EIA or any recent memorandums show the extent of coral loss, mitigation or any attempts to translocate corals in order to protect these species.
The beach at Sham Wan, Lamma is the last remaining nesting beach for the endangered and protected green turtle (Chelonia mydas) in Hong Kong waters. This species and the Sham Wan nesting beach is protected under the Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Chapter 170) Under the ordinance it is illegal to willfully disturb a nest or egg of any protected wild animal?. The construction process, increased lights and increased boat traffic will willfully disturb these protected animals from nesting.
On these grounds Living Seas HK objects to the development named as “Baroque”.
Around 120 residents turned out to a public meeting called by LIM on August 27 to oppose the construction of a “super-incinerator” on unspoilt Shek Kwu Chau.
LIM, which led the successful campaign against a decision to build a super-prison on Hei Ling Chau in 2004, argued its case against the super-incinerator.
In particular, it opposes locating it on Shek Kwu Chau, an island
LIM urged residents to join the “no” campaign on the grounds that:
1. Hong Kong needs to improve its pitiful general waste management methods before resorting to widespread incineration which won’t address the underlying waste problem.
2. The Ash Lagoons at the already degraded site in Tsang Tsui, over a hilly range from Tsuen Mun, are a cheaper, more efficient and logical choice.
There is already infrastructure with Black Point power station plus road access.
No land reclamation would be required and therefore it would be much quicker and cheaper to build there than at Shek Kwu Chau.
3. The Tsang Tsui choice would have an impact on fewer people — the lagoons are shielded by three mountain ranges and are more than six km from the nearest population cluster, Tsuen Mun.
4. Shek Kwu Chau is only three km away across open seas from densely populated Cheung Chau.
Ominously, government documents refer to the proposed incinerator as “the first” incinerator which implies the Hong Kong government expects to burn its way out of its waste management problem rather than addressing the root cause of the problem.
Despite citing the obvious advantages of selecting Tsang Tsui over Shek Kwu Chau, government documentation and plans plumped for Shek Kwu Chau at the earliest stage, suggesting a done deal.
Reproduced with permission from lantaulink.com
The Strange Workings of the Hong Kong Government
By Mark Parlett
In this day and age how could a government decide that the only solution to its escalating waste problems is not to recycle but to despoil one of its few areas of natural beauty by building a mammoth waste incinerator right in the middle of it?
This is not even because, despite Hong Kong’s legendary lack of space, there are no alternatives. There is an alternative site in an already denuded area that would be quicker and probably cheaper (we will come to that later) to build.
It is also next to an existing facility to process the residual ash and a power station for connecting the power generated into the grid.
The two sites in question are Tsang Tsui Ash lagoons, an industrial site to the north of Tsuen Mun and Shek Kwu Chau an unspoilt island lying between Lantau and Cheung Chau facing Lantau’s beautiful holiday beaches.
So what is their reasoning? The corner stone of their argument is the unique concept of “geographical balance” as proposed by the secretary for the environment Mr. Edward Yau Tang-wah.
This unusual idea is that having despoiled large parts of the territory already it is only “fair” to go and despoil the rest of it so that everybody in Hong Kong suffers equally.
By the same logic Tokyo municipal authorities, who the Hong Kong officials have visited, would have built their incinerator in the Kamakura resort area rather than on the already denuded industrial sight in Tokyo bay they did choose.
Then the second argument is that SKC is slightly closer to the refuse transfer stations in Kowloon and Hong Kong even claiming this will reduce the carbon foot print of the scheme.
However in order to make this appear significant they had to include an unsubstantiated amount of extra land transportation for Tsang Tsui.
Other arguments include proximity to “major” population clusters. Apparently the people of Chung Chau and Southern Lantau do not constitute a “major” population cluster where as the people of Tsuen Mun do.
But then in the same paragraph the EPD is quick to point out that there won’t be any harmful emissions anyway.
So if the second point is true then it should not matter if the incinerator was placed in central Hong Kong?
In short if the incinerator does generate hazardous emissions then it does not matter if it endangers the health of ten or ten thousand people both are equally un-acceptable. And if it is not hazardous then it doesn’t matter how close it is, to however many people.
While denying that there will be any emissions they point out that the prevailing wind for most of the year blows out to sea at SKC this in fact is true for both sites.
However for three months of the year this is reversed (Hong Kong observatory data) then the non- existent emissions will be blown directly in to the houses of the pore residents of Cheung Chau.
In the case TTAL however there is one of Hong Kong’s highest peaks between the site and the nearest downwind population centre of Tsuen Mun.
The final argument is one of “economic synergy” in the sense that the building and operation of the incinerator will provide some economic benefit to the residence of Cheung Chau.
Naturally the residents of Tsang Tsui would receive the same benefits so this argument could favour either site. Oddly neither the residents of Cheung Chua nor Tsang Tsui appear to be rushing to receive this huge economic windfall.
This is the extent of the governments published reasoning, there are however quite a few omissions from this.
The first of these is that all of the above was carried out without any knowledge or consideration of cost.
A spokesman for the EPD said that full costs for SKC will be available by the end of this year. But when pushed over would the full costs for the alternative TTAL site also be available he could not categorically confirm they would.
So the decision has been made in complete disregard of the relevant costs. I guess something only a government with bulging coffers such as ours can do.
Independent estimates vary between 33% and 300% more expensive to use SKC rather TTAL.
Another factor that did not apparently merit consideration is that according to the EPDs own estimates building at SKC will take at least 2 years longer to build which is two years after the capacity of all existing landfill will be exhausted.
Despite being the environmental protection agency they admit that the reclamation needed for the SKC site will cause loss of habitat and endanger the lives of the finless Porpoises that inhabit the area but deem this as acceptable without mentioning there would be no loss of habitat or damage to rare species if they chose TTAL instead.
Nor is there any mention of the negative economic impact on the tourist industry as the facility would be clearly visible from all the beaches of South Lantau.
So why has the government done such a shabby job of managing the waste issues in the first place and then if it is inevitable that Hong Kong has to have an incinerator choosing such a inappropriate site for it?
The first is a much bigger question requiring a lot more space than available here. For the second, one clue may lie in the wording of some of the documents regarding the super incinerator (Integrated waste management facility).
In many documents but by no means all the EPD refer to this as Hong Kong’s first Integrated Waste Management Facility. Normally if the need was so urgent one would have thought you would build the first one in fastest most economical site in order to avoid the issue of two years of overflowing landfill.
That would be unless you considered the demography of the two proposed sites.
The nearest village to TTAL is Lung Kwu Tan a small and insignificant place apart from it is the home village of one Lau Wong-Fat head of the Heung Yee Kuk and head of the Tsuen Mun rural committee.
In other words they already know that they will have to build on both sites and rather than tackle such a powerful political opponent to start with they prefer to attack what they believe to be an easier target, the less well represented outlying islanders.
Then when they have got that past, present the second incinerator as an inevitable fait a complete to the residents of Tsuen Mun.
Funny how governments work.
Do we want a waste Incinerator in the Islands?
The Government has published plans to build a super-incinerator as the centerpiece of their so-called “integrated” waste management strategy.
Based on a questionable Environmental Impact Assessment study, they have chosen a site adjoining Shek Kwu Chau island, which lies between Chi Ma Wan and Cheung Chau off South Lantau, in preference to an already degraded site next to an existing power station at Tsang Tsui Ash Lagoons.
LIM urges the Government to scrap this plan and introduce a genuinely integrated waste reduction, recycling and management strategy instead.
The Government’s reasoning
The government claims the Shek Kwu Chau site is to be preferred because:
The Real Issues
However, a closer examination of the facts reveals:
So why choose such an inappropriate site? Perhaps it is believed we would be a softer target than the well-represented urban population of Tuen Mun?
How you can help prove them wrong?
If you care about our environment and want to show your support for the LIM position on the super-incinerator, please contact us for the full details of the next steps proposed by LIM. E-mail firstname.lastname@example.org
Living Islands Movement
Sustainable Island Development
The Living Islands Movement (LIM) has called a public meeting for Saturday, August 27 to put the case against building a super-incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau.
Background: The Hong Kong Government proposes to build a super-incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau, preferring this site to the Tsang Tsui ash lagoons near Tuen Mun which were also assessed for this purpose.
The choice of Shek Kwu Chau (the island between South Lantau and Cheung Chau) is wrong because it:
LIM strongly urges you, your family and friends and neighbours to attend our public meeting to discuss:
The Situation to Date: :
The now temporarily withdrawn Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and the distorted conclusions drawn from it by the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) were a travesty in our view.
Furthermore, the Government is clearly trying to use incineration as the centrepiece of its so-called integrated waste management strategy while failing to address the root causes of the problem.
Therefore LIM is strongly urging the Government to scrap this plan and introduce a genuinely integrated waste reduction, recycling and management programme instead.
The situation so far is:
The EIA will surely be reissued in due course and LIM is already planning its response and to take other actions to ensure this ill-conceived plan does not go through. If you would like to find out more about this proposal and our suggested approach, please contact LIM at email@example.com
We will need everybody’s support to win this so please pass this message on to anyone else who you feel would like to know more about the issue.
Louise Preston, Chairperson, Living Islands Movement
There are only three buffalo left in Mui Wo and there is more than enough space for them to co-exist peacefully with humans — and they keep the acres of marshy scrubland here trimmed. Yet the authorities (and property developers) deem them a threat to public safety and want to move them.
PREVIOUS EVENTS SHOW BUFFALO ARE UNLIKELY TO SURVIVE A
IN 2007, 16 OUT OF 17 DIED IN ONE SUCH RELOCATION
THE RELOCATION SITE AT MAI PO IS NOT READY; THERE IS INSUFFICIENT WATER AT THE HOLDING SITE FOR WALLOWING ANIMALS
IF YOU AGREE, SIGN THIS PETITION TO DEMAND THE AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT (AFCD) CANCEL ITS PLANNED SECOND RELOCATION ATTEMPT.
If you prefer to lobby the AFCD as an individual, the contact is:
Dr Howard K.H. Wong
B.A.(Hons), M.A., Vet.MB., MPVM, MRCVS
Principle Veterinary Officer
Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department
Tel: (852) 2150 7068 Fax: (852) 2152 0320
We have received advice that Cheung Chau will be holding a “Green Movement Day” on Sunday, July 10, as per the itinerary below.
This is part of Cheung Chau’s campaign against the super-incinerator on nearby Shek Kwu Chau, to which LIM is also strongly opposed.
A group of us will be taking the 10.10 am Inter Islands Ferry from Mui Wo to Cheung Chau to support the event, and of course we would welcome any and all LIM members and friends who would like to join us.
If possible, please let us know in advance ( via e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org ) if you intend to come along, so that we can reserve places on the boat trip to Shek Kwu Chau or if necessary organise an additional sampan, but last minute delegates also welcome!”
9.00 am Chairman’s Declaration and Statement; Speeches by guests;
9.15 am Magic Show
9.45 am Awards grant（solid waste design contest and colouring competition among primary schools）
9.50 am Opening ceremony by heads of associations, school representatives, and officials’ representatives.
The Universal Declaration of Solid Waste Sorting activities begin.
10.00 am Opening ceremony ends
10.05 am Interviews with residents / students / businesses … etc.
11.00 am Site observation visit to the Shek Kwu Chau area (Notes: 1. Grand Canal can carry 50 people; or 2. boat trip which can carry seven per vessel; to be confirmed)
1.00 pm No glue (no plastic bags) on the streets — interview situation
2.00 pm Classification of solid waste
3.00 pm The programme is complete; participants are free for interviews
4.00 pm Convener’s Speech
4.05 pm Presentation of souvenirs to cooperating groups
4.10 pm Presentations to volunteers
4.20 pm Performances
4.30 pm Declaration of the
programme of future activities
4.35 pm Ends
LIM issues a letter of objection to the draft Outline Zoning Plan for the proposed Shek Kwu Chau Super-incinerator.
Please support Living Seas in the final push through Legco Finance Committee.
LIM strongly supports the proposed trawling ban as we believe this will ultimately be highly beneficial to tourism and eco-tourism in maritime Hong Kong, including the Islands District.
Coral reefs and seabeds will be allowed to regenerate and fish populations revived. There will be greater food supply for marine mammals and sea birds; dolphin watching, bird watching, diving, snorkeling and recreational fishing will all become worthwhile recreations after many years of decline.
Our enquiries find that most of the Cheung Chau fishing fleet will be unaffected as it fishes outside Hong Kong waters; others will be adequately compensated by government.
[box] From: Dod O’Dwyer email@example.com
Subject: Trawling ban – Legco Finance Committee vote
We are close, oh so very close to success on getting the trawling ban completely accepted in Hong Kong, however we aren’t there yet and at this last stage your help is needed, again.
I spoke to the AFCD and have found out that the major issue to be finalised to ensure that the trawling ban actually happens is the vote by the Legco Finance committee on June 10.
At this meeting, the AFCD and the FEHD (Food and Environmental Hygiene Department) will request the funding required to compensate the affected fishermen and to implement the trawling ban in Hong Kong (steps such as buying back trawling boats, setting up additional artificial reefs, marine surveys etc).
Some fishermen are still actively pursuing increased compensation and crying foul. In my view this is confusing the issue.[/box]
1. Attend the Legco Finance committee are meeting on June 10 at 3 pm. If you are available, please reserve a seat via 2869 9399. A public gallery that is full of green groups and civic minded citizens will definitely help push this through.
2. The fishing community is still fighting this and if you and/or your members have not yet written into support the government efforts on the trawling ban please do pass on the message. I also understand that certain political parties are sitting on the fence and may still oppose this important initiative at this late stage.
I suggest that at this stage e-mails are sent directly to the Finance Committee and to the major political parties listed below.
Legco Finance Committee: firstname.lastname@example.org
Below is a very quickly put together suggested e-mail that can be used. Copy and paste into an e-mail and adjust as appropriate.
Thanks for your support on this. Please do contact me directly if you have any questions or additional thoughts. Living Seas will be writing formally to the Finance Committee.
I am resident of Hong Kong and currently live in _ _ _ _ _ _.
I support the government’s proposal to ban all trawling in Hong Kong’s seas. It is long overdue.
Fish stocks in Hong Kong are depleted and our seas are a valuable recreational resource that has
long being abused and ignored.
I understand that some fishermen are objecting to this ban and are seeking increased
compensation; I do understand and empathize with their concerns for their future, however
trawling as a practice is fundamentally destroying the future for the whole fishing community
and devastating a valuable recreational resource, a resource that is vital piece of what makes
Hong Kong a wonderful place to live and work.
The trawling ban is about ensuring that Hong Kong’s seas are vibrant for the long term survival
of the fisheries sector and for the whole community.
I am writing to urge you to support the trawling ban financial package to be presented on June 10
and to ensure that the far reaching plan for the ban on trawling is fully implemented as soon
Office of the Chief Executive , Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, People’s Republic of China
Central Government Offices (Tamar Site), Hong Kong
Mr. Donald Tsang – email@example.com
(Mr. Henry Tang Ying-yen firstname.lastname@example.org)
12/F, Central Government Offices, West Wing, Lower Albert Road, Central , Hong Kong
Mr. Stephen Lam – email@example.com
5/F, Central Government Offices, Main Wing , Lower Albert Road , Central, Hong Kong
Mr. John C Tsang – firstname.lastname@example.org
33-34/F & 46-48/F, Revenue Tower, 5 Gloucester Road, Hong Kong
2nd Floor, East Wing, Central Government Offices, Lower Albert Road, Central, Hong Kong
Mr. Philip W H Yung, Commissioner for Tourism – email@example.com
Hong Kong Tourism Board
Mr. James Tien, Chairman – firstname.lastname@example.org
Leisure and Cultural Services Department
Leisure and Cultural Services Headquarters, 1-3 Pai Tau Street, Sha Tin, Hong Kong
Ms. Betty Fung Ching Suk-yee, Director – email@example.com
17/F, North Point Government Offices, 333 Java Road, North Point, Hong Kong
Mr. Jimmy C F Leung, Director – firstname.lastname@example.org
20/F North Point Government Offices, 333 Java Road, North Point, Hong Kong.
Ms. Annie Tam, Director – email@example.com
LEGCO Panel on Environmental Affairs – firstname.lastname@example.org
Chairman Hon CHAN Hak-kan – email@example.com
Room 523C, West Wing, Central Government Offices, Hong Kong
Deputy Chairman Hon Audrey EU Yuet-mee, SC, JP – firstname.lastname@example.org
Room 601, Citibank Tower, 3 Garden Road, Central, Hong Kong
Hon James TO Kun-sun |Hon WONG Yung-kan, SBS, JP | Hon Miriam LAU Kin-yee, GBS, JP | Hon Andrew CHENG Kar-foo | Hon LEE Wing-tat | Hon Jeffrey LAM Kin-fung, GBS, JP | Hon CHEUNG Hok-ming, GBS, JP | Prof Hon Patrick LAU Sau-shing, SBS, JP | Hon KAM Nai-wai, MH | Hon Cyd HO Sau-lan | Hon CHAN Kin-por, JP | Hon IP Wai-ming, MH | Hon Tanya CHAN | Hon Albert CHAN Wai-yip
Clerk – Miss Becky YU
Legal Adviser – Miss Kitty CHENG
LEGCO Finance Committee – email@example.com
Chairman Hon Emily LAU Wai-hing, JP – firstname.lastname@example.org
Room 602, Citibank Tower, 3 Garden Road, Central, Hong Kong
Deputy Chairman Prof Hon Patrick LAU Sau-shing, SBS, JP – email@example.com
Room 901, 9/F, Union Commercial Building, 12-16 Lyndhurst Terrace, Hong Kong
Hon Albert HO Chun-yan Ir | Dr Hon Raymond HO Chung-tai, SBS, S.B.St.J., JP | Hon LEE Cheuk-yan Dr Hon David LI Kwok-po, GBM, GBS, JP | Hon Fred LI Wah-ming, SBS, JP | Dr Hon Margaret NG | Hon James TO Kun-sun | Hon CHEUNG Man-kwong | Hon CHAN Kam-lam, SBS, JP | Hon Mrs Sophie LEUNG LAU Yau-fun, GBS, JP | Hon LEUNG Yiu-chung | Dr Hon Philip WONG Yu-hong, GBS | Hon WONG Yung-kan, SBS, JP | Hon LAU Kong-wah, JP | Hon LAU Wong-fat, GBM, GBS, JP | Hon Abraham SHEK Lai-him, SBS, JP | Hon Miriam LAU Kin-yee, GBS, JP | Hon Andrew CHENG Kar-foo | Hon Timothy FOK Tsun-ting, GBS, JP | Hon TAM Yiu-chung, GBS, JP | Hon LI Fung-ying, SBS, JP | Hon Tommy CHEUNG Yu-yan, SBS, JP | Hon Frederick FUNG Kin-kee, SBS, JP | Hon Audrey EU Yuet-mee, SC, JP | Hon Vincent FANG Kang, SBS, JP | Hon WONG Kwok-hing, MH | Hon LEE Wing-tat | Dr Hon Joseph LEE Kok-long, SBS, JP | Hon Jeffrey LAM Kin-fung, GBS, JP | Hon Andrew LEUNG Kwan-yuen, GBS, JP | Hon CHEUNG Hok-ming, GBS, JP | Hon WONG Ting-kwong, BBS, JP | Hon Ronny TONG Ka-wah, SC | Hon CHIM Pui-chung | Hon KAM Nai-wai, MH | Hon Cyd HO Sau-lan | Hon Starry LEE Wai-king, JP | Dr Hon LAM Tai-fai, BBS, JP | Hon CHAN Hak-kan | Hon Paul CHAN Mo-po, MH, JP | Hon CHAN Kin-por, JP | Dr Hon Priscilla LEUNG Mei-fun, JP | Dr Hon LEUNG Ka-lau | Hon CHEUNG Kwok-che | Hon WONG Sing-chi | Hon WONG Kwok-kin, BBS | Hon IP Wai-ming, MH | Hon IP Kwok-him, GBS, JP | Hon Mrs Regina IP LAU Suk-yee, GBS, JP | Dr Hon PAN Pey-chyou | Hon Paul TSE Wai-chun, JP | Dr Hon Samson TAM Wai-ho, JP | Hon Alan LEONG Kah-kit, SC | Hon LEUNG Kwok-hung | Hon Tanya CHAN | Hon Albert CHAN Wai-yip | Hon WONG Yuk-man
Clerk – Mrs Constance LI
Legal Adviser – Mr Jimmy MA
New Territories West
Albert HO Chun-yan – firstname.lastname@example.org
7/F, Bangkok Bank Building, 28 Des Voeux Road Central, Hong Kong
LEE Cheuk-yan – email@example.com
Room 327, West Wing, Central Government Offices, Hong Kong
LEUNG Yiu-chung – firstname.lastname@example.org
Unit 7, G/F, Kwai Yan House, Kwai Fong Estate, Kwai Chung, New Territories
TAM Yiu-chung – email@example.com
Room 302, West Wing, Central Government Offices, Hong Kong
WONG Kwok-kin – firstname.lastname@example.org
Room 603, Citibank Tower, 3 Garden Road, Central, Hong Kong
LEE Wing-tat – email@example.com
No. 5, G/F, Hang Chun House, Cheung Hang Estate, Tsing Yi, New Territories
CHEUNG Hok-ming – firstname.lastname@example.org
Room 523B, West Wing, Central Government Offices, Hong Kong
Albert CHAN Wai-yip – email@example.com
Room 128, G/F, Oi Chi House, Yau Oi Estate, Tuen Mun, New Territories
Tourism Functional Constituency
Paul TSE Wai-chun – firstname.lastname@example.org
Room 608, Citibank Tower, 3 Garden Road, Central, Hong Kong
SCMP – email@example.com
22 Dai Fat Street, Tai Po Industrial Estate, Tai Po, Hong Kong
8 Chun Ying Street Tseung Kwan O Industrial Estate West, Tseung Kwan O, Hong Kong
Hong Kong Standard – firstname.lastname@example.org
The Standard 3/F, Sing Tao News Corporation Building No. 3 Tung Wong Road, Shau Kei Wan, Hong Kong
Hong Kong Economic Times – email@example.com
6/F, Kodak House II, 321 Java Road, North Point, Hong Kong
77 Chun Choi Street, Tseung Kwan O Industrial Estate, New Territories
25-31 Dai Shing Street, Tai Po Industrial Estate, Tai Po, New Territories
Clear the Air – firstname.lastname@example.org
Mr James Middleton
World Wide Fund for Nature – email@example.com
Suite 1002, Asian House, 1 Hennessy Road, Wanchai, Hong Kong
The Conservancy Association – firstname.lastname@example.org
Unit 102, 1/F, Park Building, 476 Castle Peak Road, Kowloon
Friends of the Earth – email@example.com
Unit 1301-1302, 13/F, Block A, Sea View Estate, No.2 Watson Road, North Point, Hong Kong