【憑信心推算濕地補償？】
自去年5月宣佈大規模填新田魚塘濕地，政府經常強調「濕地生態功能不會出現淨減少」。乜填咗濕地真係補得返？濕地補償真係可以重「質」而不拘泥「面積」？
翻查環評文件，我哋發現當局嘅濕地補償計算方法相當具誤導性。除咗只揀選4種雀鳥作指標計算，以每公頃雀鳥密度（雀鳥數量÷某面積）推算受發展影響魚塘濕地嘅「功能價值（Functional value）」損失同補償外，補償濕地仲要等到15年後先有......
誤導一：錯用雀鳥密度單一計算魚塘生態價值
雀鳥有不同習性，個體之間亦有差異，某啲雀鳥嘅棲息地同覓食地跨越后海灣唔同地區嘅魚塘濕地，某啲只會好忠誠地用某處嘅生境（如新田）。當局單以雀鳥密度計算生態功能價值，會低估發展對雀鳥的影響，亦無法反映魚塘濕地嘅多樣功能價值，包括生物多樣性、生態完整性及連通性、生境質素、生境對區域的重要程度、生態系統服務價值（如滯洪、固碳、大氣調節、漁業價值...）等。
誤導二：只以四種雀鳥作指標（黑臉琵鷺、大白鷺、蒼鷺、普通鸕鷀）
新田錄得超過50種具保育價值鳥類，但當局選擇性評估當中四種魚食性雀鳥，直接無視多種鳥類及具不同生境需求嘅物種，包括：
(1) 哺乳動物、昆蟲、兩棲及爬行動物等，如：#歐亞水獺
(2) 擁有其他食性嘅雀鳥，如：多以無脊椎動物為食嘅 #鴴鷸類
(3) 對干擾尤其敏感嘅雀鳥，如：#潛水鴨（包括 #全球極度瀕危青頭潛鴨、#全球易危紅頭潛鴨、「本地關注」#鳳頭潛鴨 等）、#鑽水鴨、#國家級保護猛禽
(4) 於魚塘繁殖或育鶵嘅雀鳥，如：#池鷺、#小白鷺、#小鸊鷉、#白胸苦惡鳥
(5) 開闊原野雀鳥，如：#極度瀕危黃胸鵐 等小型陸地雀
誤導三：引用補償效果未經證實嘅豐樂圍環評報告
當局引用2009年涉及填塘嘅豐樂圍環評報告，報告聲稱補償措施「生態功能可提升45%」，從而推斷新田發展經補償後，生態功能價值亦會不跌反升，每種雀嘅生態功能可增加超過45%。
然而，豐樂圍發展項目規模遠細於新田科技城（住宅發展佔4公頃及補償濕地佔76.1公頃），而且發展順序為「先開展補償措施、後發展」而非「先填塘發展、後補償」，加上豐樂圍生境實況與新田不同，根本缺乏可比性。更重要嘅係，豐樂圍仲未動工，補償效果仍然係未知數。署方同顧問竟然就咁照用，仲話可以提升生態功能，究竟係哪來嘅信心？
誤導四：計算方法欠透明度
環評文件只顯示計算結果，例如結果得出發展後可能會損失17.3隻黑臉琵鷺，看似精準，但其實連雀鳥數字、濕地面積等原始數據欠奉。究竟計算雀鳥密度（雀鳥數量÷面積）嘅分子分母係點樣得返黎？點解係用呢組數據去計算？到底會唔會計錯數、或有「編輯錯誤」？公眾都無從得知，難以排除顧問為「計掂數」而亂用數據嘅可能性，更為未來喺后海灣嘅發展立下不良先例。
當局所謂嘅「生態補償」似乎只為合理化大面積填濕地，而不在乎有冇科學根據，無視30年來嘅濕地規劃原則，更不在乎打爛后海灣（又叫深圳灣）呢片大灣區獨有嘅「生態名片」，甚至損害中國作為《生物多樣性公約》第15次大會主席國嘅聲譽。
新田環評於2024年3月18日呈交環境諮詢委員會環評小組討論，我哋促請環諮會嚴謹把關，不應通過如此錯漏百出嘅環評報告
《新田科技城分區計劃大綱草圖》已展開城規程序為期兩個月嘅公眾諮詢。別讓新田失守，一齊喺5月8日前向城規會提交意見。
立即遞交意見：
https://www.tpb.gov.hk/tc/plan_making/S_STT_1.html
[Where does the confidence of successful Wetland Compensation come from?]
Since the announcement of large-scale reclamation of San Tin fishpond wetlands in May last year, the government has frequently emphasized that there will be no net loss in wetland ecological functions. Can wetland compensation truly compensate for what being filled? Can wetland compensation only focus on "quality" instead of "area"?
Upon reviewing the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), we found that the government's method of calculating wetland compensation is highly misleading. Apart from selecting only 4 bird species as indicators for calculation, using bird density (number of birds ÷ hectares of a certain area) to estimate the "functional value" loss and the corresponding compensation requirements. Besides, the compensation wetlands would also need to wait for 15 years...
1. Misusing bird density as the only calculation for fishpond ecological value
Different bird species have different behaviours and individual variations. Some birds travel to different areas of fishponds across the Deep Bay, while some birds are loyal to specific areas (such as San Tin). Calculating ecological functional value solely based on bird density would underestimate the impact of development on birds and fails to reflect the diverse functional values of San Tin fishponds, including biodiversity, ecological integrity and connectivity, habitat quality, importance of habitats to the region, and ecosystem services value (such as flood control, carbon sink, atmospheric regulation, fisheries value, etc).
2. Using only 4 bird species as indicators (Black-faced Spoonbill, Great Egret, Grey Heron, Great Cormorant)
More than 50 bird species with conservation value have been recorded in EIA, but the study only evaluated 4 piscivorous bird species, disregarding various bird species with different habitat requirements, including:
(1) Mammals such as the #Eurasian Otter , insects, amphibians, and reptiles.
(2) Bird species with different feeding habits, such as #waders that primarily feed on invertebrates.
(3) Birds highly sensitive to disturbance, such as Diving Ducks (including globally critically endangered Baer's Pochard, globally vulnerable Common Pochard, and Tufted Duck of Local Concern), Dabbling ducks, and Nationally Protected Raptors.
(4) Bird species that breed or raise chicks in fishponds, such as Chinese Pond Heron, Little Egret, Little Grebe, and White-breasted Waterhen .
(5) Open-field birds, such as the critically endangered Yellow-breasted Bunting and other land birds.
3. Citing unverified compensation results from the Fung Lok Wai EIA Report
San Tin EIA make reference to the 2009 Fung Lok Wai EIA Report to support the assumption that the ecological functions of compensation wetlands would be increased by 45% after the implementation of compensation measures. It claimed that the functional value for the 4 species would even be increased after San Tin development.
However, the scale of the Fung Lok Wai residential development, which occupies 4 hectares for development and 76.1 hectares for compensatory wetlands, is much smaller than that of the San Tin Technople. Moreover, the development sequence is "compensation measures commence first, development follows" instead of "pond filling first, compensation later". Additionally, the habitat conditions in Fung Lok Wai are somehow different from that in San Tin. We consider there is a lack of comparability. What's even more important is that construction has not yet begun in Fung Lok Wai, so the effectiveness of compensation measures is still unknown. It raises questions about the confidence of the authorities and consultants in using such data and claiming that ecological functions can be enhanced.
4. Lack of transparency in the calculation method
The EIA only display the calculation results. For example, the result shows a potential loss of 17.3 black-faced spoonbills after development. It seems precise, but the raw data, such as the actual number of birds and wetland area, are not shown. What are the numerator (number of birds) and denominator (area) for calculating the peak bird density? Why did they use this set of data for calculation? Will there be calculation errors or "editing mistakes"? The public has no way of knowing, making it difficult to rule out the possibility of consultants manipulating data for their own purposes. We are highly concerned it would set a worse precedent for future development in Deep Bay.
The ecological compensation for such a large-scale wetland reclamation claimed by the Department seems to be lacking scientific basis, and run counter to the wetland planning principles followed in the past 30 years. The development is going to undermine the uniqueness of Deep Bay (also known as Shenzhen Bay) in the Greater Bay Area, and also China's reputation as the host country of the 15th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The San Tin EIA was submitted to the Environmental Impact Assessment Subcommittee for discussion on 18 March 2024. We urge the member to rigorously scrutinize the report and not approve such a flawed assessment report.
The "San Tin Technopole Outline Zoning Plan" has started a 2-month public consultation. Let’s stand firm for San Tin. Submit your opinions to the Town Planning Board before 8th of May.
https://www.tpb.gov.hk/en/plan_making/S_STT_1.html
[
Last edited by HKBWS_KaYun at 19/03/2024 13:22 ]
