The 13th Marine Parks Visitor Liaison Group Meeting was completed on
28 May 2005. Pictures of the meeting are attached on this page.
Time: 2:45 - 4:30 p.m.
Venue: Rm 701, Cheung Sha Wan Government Office, 303 Cheung Sha Wan Road,
Hong Kong
2.1 Mr Edward WONG reported that the Working Group on Fishing Permit
had discussed on the request of villagers from Sam A and Lai Chi Wo
for issuing fishing permits in marine parks. As the deadline for application
was over, the working group decided not to accede their requests.
2.2 Mr Edward WONG reported that the department would erect some temporary
warning signs on the beach of Tung Ping Chau in response to the request
from last meeting in order to remind the visitors not to collect specimen
from the beach of Tung Ping Chau.
2.3 Mr Edward WONG informed the meeting that the department proposed
to amend the Marine Parks and Marine Reserve Regulations which included:
(a). To simplify the procedure for specimen collection inside the marine
parks or marine reserves for scientific studies by exempting the need
to seek the advice of the Country and Marine Parks Board.
(b). To propose a new permit system for controlling the glass-bottom
boat coral viewing activities inside the marine parks (excluding those
activities of sampan that using coral-viewing bucket) and
(c). if permit holders violate conditions of permit, the permit would
be revoked.
2.4 Mr. Patrick LAU reported that the Marine Parks Ambassadors Scheme
was launched in early May 2005 and the corresponding information was
available on the AFCD website. Also, AFCD would publish a coral field
guide in June introducing the coral diversity and their conservation
in Hong Kong.
3.1 Hoi Ha Wan Marine Park
3.1.1 A participant requested the Authority to display the approved
scientific studies in Hoi Ha Wan Marine Park outside the HHW Warden
Post.
Response: Agreed to display. Currently, there were 2 specimen collection
activities approved on beach of Hoi Ha Wan; one was the education activities
of WWFHK and the other was the softshore study by the University of
Hong Kong commissioned by AFCD.
3.1.2 A participant said that even the water quality of Hoi Ha Wan
Marine Park meet the standard of EPD, it is the standard of the Victoria
Harbour and is not appropriate for Hoi Ha. The participant suggested
that a more stringent standard should be used.
Response: Under the Water Pollution Control Ordinance, Hong Kong waters
are divided into a number of Water Quality Control Zones with specific
Water Quality Objective (WQO). Hoi Ha Wan Marine Park falls into the
control zone in northeastern water of Hong Kong where the WQO adopted
is the most stringent in Hong Kong. Thus, it is already above the standard
used in the harbour. A representative from WWFHK agreed with the WQO
used for HHW is the most stringent one in Hong Kong but he mentioned
that the WQOs was designated in 80s’ and suggested Environmental Protection
Department to revise the WQOs.
3.1.3 A participant appreciated the improvement of litter problem at
the beach of Hoi Ha. However, the participant mentioned some rusting
batteries were found along the shoreline near the jetty of Hoi Ha. Another
participant suggested to put some recycle bins at the pier for the recycling
old batteries.
Response: AFCD would look into the matter and clean the abandon batteries
when found. AFCD would also consult EPD for the possibility to place
batteries recycle bins at Hoi Ha.
3.1.4 A participants asked if propeller guard could be installed on
P4 vessel for the purpose of minimizing the possible injuries caused
by these vessels to the swimmers around the pier.
Response: The department had alerted the P4 vessel operators to pay
extra care to the swimmers when driving in and out of the jetty to avoid
accidents, but there were technical constraints to install propeller
guard to P4 vessels as pointed out by a participant at the last MPVLG
meeting.
3.2 Tung Ping Chau Marine Park
3.2.1 A participant worried about the litter problem caused by the
tourist in Tung Ping Chau Marine Park (TPCMP). He understood that the
majority of the litters found on the beach of TPC marine parks were
from mainland; this might create visual impact to the marine park.
Response: AFCD had already engaged contractors to collect litter at
least 2-3 days per week in each marine park. AFCD would monitor the
situation and would try its best to keep the marine parks clean.
3.3 General Marine Parks Issues
3.3.1 A participant suggested that the term ‘park’ was not appropriate
for marine conservation areas, as she thought ‘park’ carry a meaning
of playground or recreation, but the actual function of a marine park
was to protect and conserve the marine environment. She suggested to
change the term ‘park’ to ‘sanctuary’.
Response: The term Marine Park was tied in the Marine Parks Ordinance,
thus bears legal implications. Marine parks served 3 functions of conservation,
education and recreation; it was not for recreation alone. Even for
recreational activities, only those which are compatible with the conservation
objectives would take place inside the marine park. In marine reserve,
all recreational activities are prohibited and only scientific studies
are allowed with approval. In many countries, ‘parks’ is also applied
for the protected areas such as “national park” and even for the Great
Barrier Reef in Australia, they adopted the term of Marine Park. The
GBRMP is zoned into areas for different activities similar to that of
Hong Kong. Marine park is therefore a widely used terminology for marine
protected area internationally. There is no need to change.
3.3.2 A participant appreciated the marine police in stopping illegal
fishing of mainland fishermen.
Response: Representative of the marine police welcomed remark and he
encouraged the public to report the illegal fishing to them.
3.4 Other matters
3.4.1 A participant concerned the deterioration of seawater in Hong
Kong in the past two years that had affected fishermen’s catch. The
laying of gas pipeline in the northeastern water further deteriorated
the water and had significantly affected the livelihood of fishermen.
Response: According to our water quality monitoring programme, a large
extent of hypoxic seawater layer was observed last year for quite a
long period and similar phenomenon was recorded in 1994 as well. This
was the result of few typhoons combined with the hot weather last summer.
Fortunately, the situation improved since last September.
Regarding to the gas pipeline construction, the project was approved
and monitored under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance and
was assessed by Environmental Protection Department (EPD). All the construction
process would be closely monitored by EPD in order to ensure the construction
compile with all the conditions within the approval. A participant also
explained that the Tolo area would be monitored on daily basis for the
construction and the authority would stop the construction if any of
pre-designated standard would be exceeded.
3.4.2 A participant complained effluent from a new sewage outfall at
Ma Liu Shui and Ma On Shan deteriorating the water in Tolo Harbour and
he worried the condition would become worsen if nothing was done.
3.4.3 A participant complained that there was no consultation to the
fishing communities on the gas pipeline laying and related construction
works. Their request on details of a barge operating close to Yam Tin
Tsai Fish Culture Zone (YTTFCZ) was refused by the workers on the barge.
Another participant worried if YTTFCZ would be affected. He requested
consultation with fishermen should be conducted for any projects around
YTTFCZ.
Response: AFCD would convey fishermen’s concern to the relevant parties.
3.4.4 A participant complained the deployment of used tyre and steel
vessel artificial reefs deteriorated the water quality and seabed sediment,
and resulted in loss of fishes. He requested more researches on the
impact of artificial reef on the water quality.
Response: The relevant divisions of AFCD will be informed the fishermen’s
concern.
3.4.5 A participant suggested to amend the design of the roundabout
at the Pak Tam Chung Barrier Gate so that residents with country park
could pass the gate without being caught in the traffic jam before the
gate. It was also suggested to provide a lane for drivers to revert
back if they realize that they cannot pass through the gate. The participants
suggested some measures such as display notice of restricted area before
the roundabout to alert drivers; funnel-off the traffic into the coach
station at Pak Tam Chung; and directive signs to direct vehicles into
temporary waiting area if they need to apply for a permit at the visitor
centre.
Response: The department would consider the proposals.
3.4.6 A participant requested the Authority to consider issuing permits
for delivery service cars such as from supermarket, DHL, or pizza services
etc., for the convenience of residents.
Response: AFCD agreed to facilitate the access of cars for delivery
services. The police representative also had no objection to the suggestion.
3.4.8 A participant asked for the recent progress on the improvement
of coach parking at the roundabout near Hoi Ha village.
Response: It was noted that the Transport Department would look into
the issue of creating a loading and loading bay in Hoi Ha while AFCD
and the police would look into the illegal parking problem.
The meeting adjourned at 4:45pm.
