- 16 June 2005 at 6:15 am #6905Anonymous
# Nature conservation policy
Hon CHEUNG Hok-ming:
That, as the two measures, namely management agreements and public-private partnership, introduced by the Government under the new nature conservation policy implemented last year have failed to truly achieve the objective of conserving ecologically important sites under private ownership in a sustainable manner, and have even given rise to landowners’ dissatisfaction about the infringement of their rights and interests as well as the public’s doubt about the effectiveness of such measures, this Council urges the Government to review the policy, including:
(a) establishing policy objectives and strategies which genuinely accord priority to conservation;
(b) reviewing the existing fragmented legislation relating to nature conservation, and considering the enactment of legislation which specifically deals with the conservation of nature and ecology;
(c) the Government assuming a more proactive role by undertaking conservation and management work on the 12 priority sites for enhanced conservation (“priority sites”);
(d) exploring afresh practicable and reasonable options to make reasonable compensation or arrangements for owners of private land in the priority sites, so as to ensure that there is more effective conservation and management of the lands concerned;
(e) enhancing the training for the personnel responsible for managing and supervising conservation work so as to upgrade their professionalism, and promoting public awareness of nature conservation; and
(f) the relevant government departments taking the lead in co-ordinating exchanges on conservation matters among the Administration, green groups, the private sector, rural organizations, universities, research institutions, etc, and in uniting the efforts of the various parties in promoting the conservation of the ecology.
Public Officer to attend : Secretary for the Environment, Transport and Works17 June 2005 at 3:28 am #7748
I saw outline of Cheung Hok-ming’s planned presentation to Legco. and was sceptical of plans: overall, I thought that seemed aimed at absolving Heung Yee Kuk of responsibilty for env stewardship, and putting onus on govt.
I feel Heung Yee Kuk should play more of a role in this; to me, HYK can seem to be wholly concerned with money – some moves towards helping our natural environment wouldn’t go amiss. (Maybe here there is chance for start; cf Long Valley, where Kuk position seemed to be that rail bridge should be built whatever [and so, money to landowners])
Forther, govt maybe not really up to running so much conservation. For the sites, individual projects may work better – if well planned, managed.
Hopefully, too, not such vast need for conservation, if can establish projects that can bring revenue at same time as protecting environment, such as decent “eco-tourism” [inc nature, cultural tourism]. But, maybe many in HK – inc Heung Yee Kuk – don’t believe in this; we could use some working examples here, not just having to look outside HK for examples.
Post edited by: martin, at: 2005/06/17 11:30
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.