Dear Feedback,
It is unfortunate that, in our society, attempts to tackle questions of conservation are often aimed at two opposing outcomes: a habitat in danger shall either stand or fall altogether, with nothing in between. The "greenies" are well known for their uncompromising love for preserving every conceivable species and their shelters, even at the expense of the wishes or needs of the human species. The developers, in response to, or anticipation of, this religious approach, fight back vigorously.
Where the site is under private ownership, the development decision is naturally driven by rational economic calculation. Wealth-maximizing developers may have true respect for the environment, and there is no inherent reason for them to devastate habitats at their own cost, unless such devastation is a means to by-pass or evade likely attenuation or eradication of their property rights. Many existing environmental policies create incentives for those who are in charge of development companies to try all means to destroy the ecology of their land holdings, in order to discharge their fiduciary duty to shareholders.
In anticipation of a statutory interim development permission area plan or an administrative designation of an SSSI, a developer with holdings in a scenic rural setting may be tempted to fill whatever fish ponds, bulldoze whatever wetland or level whatever fallow agricultural land is held, as well as dumping onto such despoiled land as much open storage matter as possible. The eradication of the wetlands at Sham Chung (as reported in Porcupine! 19) is a case in point. The removal of such unsightly "existing uses" would become a demonstrable planning gain when a zoning or planning proposal is later lodged with government.
This is an outcome the lawmaker never intended. If the greenies conduct land searches of the land holdings of major developers in Hong Kong, they will have visitations of heart attacks as many of these holdings are in virgin lands in remote areas of Hong Kong. Have the law makers consulted economists and ecologists when they impose the law in selected areas and not in others?
How about land controlled by the government? It has a long tradition of reacting to crises. When blamed for flooding and landslides, it channelizes every conceivable waterway and sprays the hillsides with coloured cement. While species should bow to public safety concerns, are the methods used inevitable? Has any EIA been conducted before such works are carried out? Have ecologically friendly options been considered? Have trained ecologists devised or evaluated these options?
LAWRENCE LAI
P.4
Dear Feedback,
In response to Tim Utteridge's letter regarding my article on naming plants (Porcupine! 17: 7), 1 didn't intend to make a distinction between the application of substantival and adjectival forms: just to point out the correct way of spelling them. Consult Stearn on botanical latin by all means, but you still have to follow the Botanical Code for names to be correct.
RICHARD CORLETT
P.4
Dear Feedback,
Thank you for reviewing my book "Tropical Asian Streams - Zoobenthos, Ecology and Conservation" in the last Porcupine!. Inevitably, I have some rejoinders to a few of the comments, which I outline below in no special order.
Terms were not explained in the text because they are defined (or cross-referenced) in the Subject Index - a rather common approach for recent science books which works on the assumption that when a new word is first encountered the reader will look it up. For a book which readers will dip into, it does not help to have a term defined when it first appears in the text, because that may not be where a reader first comes across it.
The omission of Keith Wilson's work was entirely deliberate. The references on dragonflies that I cited deal with larvae - I did not reference accounts of adults where descriptions of larvae had been published previously. A couple of his more recent publications were omitted (as were about 200 other articles) because they were obtained too late.
I agree that herps need more attention (especially frogs) and I am aware of the fact they got scant mention. I am trying to review that literature for another publication, but it is hard to find stream-specific' studies. I'm searching out material on the conservation status of amphibians at present, and have an article in press dealing with riverine mammals.
DAVE 'the Jargon King'
DUDGEONP.4-5
Dear Feedback,
There were some quite interesting comments raised in Porcupine! 19. Issues such as the adequacy of the West Rail EIA (How much should an EIA include? Who should be blamed: the lack of baseline data, KCRC, AFD, the substantially paid consultants or the local conservationists?), the "representativeness" of previous work such as Chong and Dudgeon (1992) (What would contribute a representative study? How to determine that a species is rare or extinct if there is no representative data?), rescue (or wiping out?) of Black Paradise Fish from Sham Chung, and the environmental measures implemented to protect streams (absolutely nothing has been done, is it true?) should certainly deserve further discussions. The article by John Fellowes and Michael Lau might also arouse debate on the issues such as "specialist" (How to define? Recognized by whom?) vs "generalist" (or EIA professionals?), role of "taxonomists" (Or merely those who could identify some taxonomic groups in the field) in EIA studies, and the value of knowledge on specific species (trade secret or public asset?). All these would be worth some further discussion in the future.
K.W. CHEUNG
P.5
Dear Feedback,
A mysterious construction is occurring in Tung Chung Bay! In late April 1999, I saw a bulldozer moving in the mangrove carrying bags of cement. I was shocked because I had supposed no construction work should be taking place in the mangroves since I thought mangroves were protected in Hong Kong. I have been working at the mangrove in Tung Chung recently and found it is a valuable study site due to the species richness of the mangroves, and the high abundance of littorinid snails such as Littoraria ardouiniana, L. melanostoma and L. pallescens. There is also a SSSI for seagrass bed located next to the mangrove within Tung Chung Bay. Since there is no sign/notice of construction near the mangrove, I contacted the Planning Department, the Civil Engineering Department, the Territory Development Department and the District Office of Lantau Island to try and find out what is happening. Surprisingly, NO ONE from these departments was able to answer my question. Then I went to the mangrove again in mid May to try to get an answer from the bulldozer driver. He told me the District Office is building an emergency roadway for government vehicles there. However, I still worry that the construction will disturb this fragile habitat. Could someone give me any suggestions about how one can deal with this kind of situation and also how we can prevent such minor, apparently unknown events happening again in other mangrove / ecologically important sites in Hong Kong?
OLIVE LEE
P.5
Back to Contents
Back to Porcupine Homepage
Go to Department Homepage