HKWildlife.Net Forum 香港自然生態論壇
遊客:  註冊 | 登錄 | 龍尾 | YouTube | Facebook | English | Library | Blog | 幫助
 
標題: [南生圍] 南生圍最後召集了!!!
siuyuen
幼蟲
Rank: 2Rank: 2



UID 5954
Total 228
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 1631
種子 1631
花蜜 211
閱讀權限 40
註冊 2012-6-29
Pri. Camera: 
狀態 離線
發表於 2012-11-13 00:00  資料 短消息 
南生圍最後召集了!!!


本帖最近評分記錄
Sze   2012-11-15 02:48  種子  +10   讚 Like !!
頂部
ah-in
蟲卵
Rank: 1


UID 4041
Total 25
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 280
種子 280
花蜜 25
閱讀權限 20
註冊 2008-8-20
Pri. Camera: 
狀態 離線
發表於 2012-11-14 19:47  資料 主頁 短消息  Yahoo!
回應反對有關南生圍發展申請規劃 (Reference:  A/YL-NSW/218)

本人對南生圍發展項目的影響非常擔憂,在此提出堅決反對意見:
1)是次發展項目的諮詢文件着重於與之前的規劃設計作比較,在面積數據上及所提出的保育管理似乎較之前有所改善和正面, 但文件中上並沒有詳述項目對生態環境造成的實質影響和評估,亦沒有述明「大規模管理」的落實方法措施,就作結論為有裨益(S.5)。

2) 我們需要明白南生圍、甩洲基本上和米埔是同一濕地生態系統 (雀鳥從來就不會區分它們),只是南生圍被凋荒一段時間,有些魚塘放乾及填土了, 變成半乾濕地帶(隨季節變化), 以至它的生態情況惡化和保育價值下降, 而令到具保育價值的地帶面積在計算上減少了。 現在的建議項目其實部分是在這些地帶上進行發展興建住宅,這將會把半乾濕地永久消失,再沒有修復的機會。
而在建議文件上半乾濕地帶並不計算在具保育價值的濕地面積內,故引申出所謂「不會有濕地淨減少」的論點, 亦不表示那些地帶就沒有保育價值,這令人有錯覺和誤解。
方案建議將在南生圍的蘆葦地帶上作發展,會永久摧毀南生圍的蘆葦帶,它是目前本港僅有的最大片蘆葦床,被評為有重要生態價值,應予保護而不是摧毀。

3) 造成目前的情況是因為欠缺了策略性的保育規劃和實踐,即是要將土地以生態價值分等級並按之進行保育,不是要等它的生態價值下降後而被發展(稱之為可持續發展及甚至包裝成環境改善項目)。
南生圍、甩洲本來具有非常高的生態價值(不論在雀鳥之數量及品種,以及提供遷徙候鳥的重要補給功能方面),實應採取最高的保育方式 - 以換地來作有效永久的保育,將住宅外遷發展,但建議文件卻完全排除了這方面的可能性(S.9),欠缺對保育真正承擔、及周全的考慮和彈性。即使不能全部外遷發展,也應考慮遷減部分, 以爭取最大保育範圍和最高效益,方案建議的發展覆了蓋南生圍南部接近一半,及坐落在鸕鶿棲息地之上,這會造成頗高生態影響, 不應接納。

4) 此外發展計劃中的車路、天橋,會與雀鳥飛行遷徙路線相交,所帶來交通的滋擾將長遠地影響它們的食繁殖等活動,文件並沒交待這方面的評估、改善和避免方法。
工程進行會有大片範圍挖土,還有車流,噪音等影響,可能嚇怕雀鳥和令候鳥不敢前來棲息,甚至引起水土變化而影響覓食。這些種種影響和問題需要有效的保育政策去避免及解決,目前項目建議的發展將會造成濕地生態永久受損, 因此不能接受。


圖片: NSW-map&.jpg (2012-11-14 19:47, 153.36 K)


本帖最近評分記錄
SIUFA   2012-11-15 11:56  種子  +10   水準之作 Superb !
Sze   2012-11-15 02:48  種子  +10   讚 Like !!
頂部
ah-in
蟲卵
Rank: 1


UID 4041
Total 25
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 280
種子 280
花蜜 25
閱讀權限 20
註冊 2008-8-20
Pri. Camera: 
狀態 離線
發表於 2012-11-15 19:25  資料 主頁 短消息  Yahoo!
English version also completed:

1) The proposal document has put focus on the revised layouts and numbers in comparison to the previous version, and present the apparently positive improvement with the adoption of ‘wetland management’ in the scheme. However, there lacks of details on the likely impacts caused by development and the assessment, nor has preventive/mitigating measures been included. Besides, there also needs more details of the methodology and applications of ‘wetland management’ before concluding as ecological enhancement with the scheme

2) We understand that Nam Sang Wai and Lut Chau are in fact part of the same ecological system as with Mai Po, the Deep Bay RAMSAR reserve (of course,  birds will only see them as one large piece of wetland). However,  part of Nam Sang Wai has been abandoned for some time, as some fish ponds drained or filled and become semi-wetland (condition changes seasonally), consequentially its ecology deteriorates and conservation value lessens. This resulted  in reduction of total area of wetland in account. The proposed scheme in fact is going to develop residential housing on this kind of semi-wetlands at the southern part of NSW, which means that these lands will permanently disappear and no chance for rehabilitation. The area of semi-wetlands are not accounted as ‘wetland’, therefore, the document presents that there is ‘no-net-loss’ of wetland.  However, it does not mean at all that the semi-wetlands have little ecological value and not worthy for conservation. It may be misleading and shifting focus of the public.

3) The scheme proposes for development of housing on the reed land which has significant importance for bird lives and ecologies - it is found as the largest reed field in Hong Kong’s territory. It should be conserved but not destroyed, and will not be replaceable by re-planting in surrounding of pond sides of the development.

4) The wetlands of NSW have been left continuously unmanaged / abandoned were mainly due to lack of long-term strategic conservation and zoning plan -
which involves ecological assessment and classification of  the land, and implement conversation measure accordingly to protect the environment, in contrary to let their ecological value degrade over time and then development takes place and named as ‘sustainable’, or even packaged as ‘enhancement scheme’. NSW, with its similarly significant ecological and environmental importance (in terms of birds’ population and species, and as food supply/habitat for migrating birds), deserves for permanent and highest possible conservation measure – we should consider for possibility of land exchange in order to provide land elsewhere for the development requirement. If it is not possible for whole project, still needs to consider reducing the scale of development  with partial land exchange, which will maximize the conservation area and effectiveness. However, the document completely rules out this possibility and shows little commitment to protect our environment.
5) The development scheme will cover almost half of the southern area of NSW, including the area of existing habitat of cormorants -  their population ranges from 2000 to as many as 5000, comprising up to 5% of whole populations of the specie in South East Asia (data from Wetland International). There is no other habitat of same scale found in Hong Kong and it highly deserves conservation but not displaced by development.

6) There will be as many as 1400 resident housing and building of 16 floors height in the development scheme, these will be causing noise/light and other human disturbance to bird lives permanently. Besides, roads and bridges for vehicles will intersect with the route migrating birds, the traffic and disturbance may dispel birds from inhabiting, feeding and reproduction in the area. The cumulative impact needs to be considered and minimized, the proposed scheme should not be accepted as it will destroy important ecological elements of Nam Sang Wai.

本帖最近評分記錄
Sze   2012-11-15 23:12  種子  +10   讚 Like !!
頂部
Sze (阿思)
義務二級版主
Rank: 8Rank: 8Rank: 8Rank: 8Rank: 8Rank: 8Rank: 8Rank: 8


Bird Expert  
UID 50
Total 10716
主題
回覆
精華 5
積分 36853
種子 36853
花蜜 10842
閱讀權限 100
註冊 2006-6-11
Pri. Camera:  Canon
來自 史前古代.香港
狀態 離線
發表於 2012-11-15 23:12  資料 主頁 文集 短消息 
請救救南生圍,明晚(星期五)就是表達意見的最後限期!  
http://info.gov.hk/tpb/tc/plan_application/A_YL-NSW_218.html

請幫幫各種不懂寫信,不懂說人話的野生生物,發一句聲,
幫牠們保住多年來賴以維生的「家」。

「家」不同「屋」,「家」是不能用錢買回來!
「家」是要很多年,很多年時間,慢慢累積一點一滴而成!




食飽就瞓咁至in,開心快樂每一天!
要為cheap雀爭口氣!
https://www.facebook.com/hkwildbird.concerngroup
頂部
SIUFA
蟲蛹
Rank: 3Rank: 3Rank: 3


UID 2541
Total 991
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 2455
種子 2455
花蜜 795
閱讀權限 50
註冊 2007-12-19
Pri. Camera:  Nikon
狀態 離線
發表於 2012-11-16 17:20  資料 主頁 短消息 
多謝你的提交。
Thank you for your submission.
  
申請編號
Application No.  

A/YL-NSW/218
(就第12A條申請提出意見 comments on section 12A application)  
申請編號
Application No.  

A/YL-NSW/218
(就第16條申請提出意見 comments on section 16 application)  
申請編號
Application No.  

A/YL-NSW/218
(就第17條申請提出意見 comments on section 17 application)  
  
參考編號
Reference Number  121116-170743-89170
  
提交日期及時間
Date and Time of Submission  16/11/2012 17:07:43

一盡棉力

本帖最近評分記錄
Sze   2012-11-16 22:36  種子  +10   感謝!




頂部
Sze (阿思)
義務二級版主
Rank: 8Rank: 8Rank: 8Rank: 8Rank: 8Rank: 8Rank: 8Rank: 8


Bird Expert  
UID 50
Total 10716
主題
回覆
精華 5
積分 36853
種子 36853
花蜜 10842
閱讀權限 100
註冊 2006-6-11
Pri. Camera:  Canon
來自 史前古代.香港
狀態 離線
發表於 2012-11-16 22:38  資料 主頁 文集 短消息 
今晚12時便是提交意見的最後限期!
請大家幫忙救救南生圍!




食飽就瞓咁至in,開心快樂每一天!
要為cheap雀爭口氣!
https://www.facebook.com/hkwildbird.concerngroup
頂部
lee_yat_ming
成蟲
Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4Rank: 4



328 Union  
UID 174
Total 1871
主題
回覆
精華 0
積分 55612
種子 55612
花蜜 1633
閱讀權限 70
註冊 2006-8-30
Pri. Camera: 
狀態 離線
發表於 2012-11-17 00:04  資料 文集 短消息 
已SEND 意見。

本帖最近評分記錄
Sze   2012-11-17 01:35  種子  +10   感謝!
頂部
 


Untitled Document


當前時區 GMT+8, 現在時間是 2021-4-21 06:54

Powered by Discuz! 5.0.0  © 2006-2008 HKWildlife.Net
Processed in 0.027325 second(s), 9 queries , Gzip enabled
清除 Cookies - 聯繫我們 - HKWildlife.Net - Archiver