ENCLAVESSSI

BIO-INDICATOR

THREATENED

VULNERABLE

RARE

ABUN

DANT

IRREPLACEABLE

ROBUST

KBI

UMBRELLA SPP.

Protecting Sites of Ecological Value:

A Guide for Decision-makers

August 2012

Mike KilburnWilson Lau

Supported by:

About Civic ExchangeCivic Exchange is a Hong Kong-based non-profit public policy think tank that was established in October 2000. It is an independent organisation that has access to policy-makers, officials, businesses, media and NGOs – reaching across sectors and borders. Civic Exchange has solid research experience in areas such as air quality, energy, urban planning, climate change, conservation, water, governance, political development, equal opportunities, poverty and gender. For more information about Civic Exchange, visit http://www.civic-exchange.org.

About the AuthorsMike Kilburn is the Head of Environmental Strategy at Civic Exchange. He has a lifelong interest in nature conservation, which was originally stimulated by his interest in birds. He has been involved in conservation advocacy and research on environmental governance for almost twenty years.

Wilson Lau is the Research and Projects Coordinator at Civic Exchange. His research is broadly centered around liveability issues, which includes a focus on nature conservation, as well as work on city wellbeing and urban walkability.

AcknowledgementsCivic Exchange would like to thank ExxonMobil Hong Kong Limited for partially funding this research.

We are especially grateful to Clive Noffke of Green Lantau Association, Ruy Barretto S.C., Andy Cornish of WWF Hong Kong and Paul Zimmerman of Designing Hong Kong for giving generously of their time and expertise.

Many thanks go to Beetle Cheng and Vicky Yeung from the Hong Kong Bird Watching Society, the Institute of Space and Earth Information Science of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (HKSAR Government) for their help and permission with the use of maps and photos.

Tamsin Bradshaw of Home Journal kindly reviewed and offered invaluable feedback on an earlier draft of this report. Yan-yan Yip and Cissy Lui reviewed the paper for publication, Michelle Wong completed the layout and graphic design, and Vera Poon translated it into Chinese.

All photos are by Mike Kilburn except where noted.

2

Hong Kong’s biodiversity is becoming more widely appreciated and valued. It is protected by a number of conventions and laws, including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which was extended to Hong Kong in May 2011. An extensive protected areas network (PAN) covering more than 40 percent of Hong Kong’s land area also protects it.

There is, however, no overall strategy for managing protected areas, and a number of sites of ecological importance are located outside the PAN. As a result, many of Hong Kong’s habitats, species and ecological processes are not appropriately recognised, protected or managed.

Legislators, district councillors, senior government officials and members of advisory boards with no formal training in conservation or biodiversity are responsible for making many of the decisions about biodiversity in Hong Kong. These decisions usually relate to determining the land use of a specific site, but the decision-makers often have no clear idea about how their choices affect the wider landscape.

This paper aims to assist the decision-makers and administrators responsible for protecting Hong Kong’s biodiversity. It does so by setting out the purpose of the PAN, creating a simple framework that identifies the broader context and sets out the specific details needed to make informed decisions about conservation. This framework also identifies the bodies responsible for providing the relevant information. It acts as a quick reference to the relevant conventions, policies, regulations and guidelines that underpin conservation in Hong Kong.

The CBD encourages a consultative approach. As a result, this framework also makes provision for the views of a wider audience – particularly environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs), academics and other experts. By involving the wider community, this framework aims to serve as a tool for achieving conservation outcomes that have the broad support of the general public.

Preface

3

Table of Contents1. Introduction: The Need to Improve Conservation Planning ......................5

1.1 A different approach is necessary1.2 Plans, programmes and strategies

2. Framework: Systematic Conservation Planning ........................................92.1 Overall objectives for conservation planning2.2 A framework for systematic conservation planning

3. Step 1: Compile Biodiversity Data ...........................................................113.1 Ecological status of biodiversity3.2 Protection status

4. Step 2: Review Conservation Goals .........................................................184.1 Representation and resilience goals4.2 Setting targets to promote representation and resilience

5. Step 3: Assess Gaps in Conservation Action ............................................215.1 Conduct a gap analysis on existing protection of

key biodiversity indicators5.2 Conduct an analysis of information gaps for conservation planning

6. Step 4: Determine Sites for Conservation Action ....................................246.1 Irreplaceability6.2 Vulnerability6.3 A key tool for establishing priority sites6.4 Framework compatibility6.5 Design considerations for selecting protected areas6.6 Decision rules in reality

7. Step 5: Determine the Appropriate Management Strategies ..................287.1 Determine the carrying capacity7.2 Determine the appropriate conservation mechanism7.3 Hong Kong’s unprotected sites of high ecological value

8. Conclusion: A Model for Hong Kong’s Conservation Practitioners ..........34

Endnotes .........................................................................................................36

Appendix .........................................................................................................39

4

At the centre of conflicts between conservationists and developers is the struggle for space. It is paradoxical that, despite Hong Kong’s highly developed and economically driven development model, the broad landscape is getting greener. The PAN (including country parks, Special Scientific Interest, Special Areas and Marine Parks) covers over 40 percent of Hong Kong’s land mass1 and forest coverage is increasing rapidly.2 The PAN, as well as other areas outside this network, supports a large range of species, found in a mix of habitats that reflect the broad diversity of Hong Kong’s landscapes.3 This is in contrast to much of southeast China, where the rapid economic development of the last few decades has led to severe habitat depletion.

Despite the size of Hong Kong’s PAN, the resilience of Hong Kong’s biodiversity remains unstable.

The PAN currently excludes a number of important species-rich habitats. Early park planners preferred to designate Hong Kong’s hilly areas as country parks,4 and as a result, shrublands, grasslands and montane woodlands are the dominant habitats in local country parks.

Meanwhile seagrass beds, freshwater wetlands and lowland rivers, which are significant habitats for native biodiversity, lack appropriate protection, despite their vulnerability to threats. The Ramsar Convention5 protects the Deep Bay wetlands as an important site for migratory birds,6 but other important habitats have not received the same recognition.

Additionally, local studies show that some 83 percent of butterfly hotspots are located outside the PAN.7 Indeed, many endemic species (restricted to Hong Kong and located nowhere else in the world) tend to be found in lowland sites, such as freshwater wetlands, feng shui woodlands and small islands.8 These habitats are some of the most under-represented in Hong Kong’s PAN.9 This suggests that the current composition of the PAN is inadequate for conserving several critical species and habitats.

1 Introduction: The Need to Improve Conservation PlanningThe protected areas network (PAN) conserves Hong Kong’s biodiversity from competing land uses

Many key ecological sites and species are found outside the PAN

Ma On Shan became a part of the PAN as a country park in 1976

Source: AFCD 5

Hong Kong’s PAN were developed in an ad hoc manner. It was initially established between 1977 and 1979, when large areas of Hong Kong Island and the New Territories were gazetted as country parks. There are few indications, however, that the decision-makers at the time considered the adequacy of the protected areas to conserve biodiversity. In fact, the development of the park system came about through chance opportunities, and often followed specific incidents of public pressure.

There is thus a consistent trend whereby significant public uproar leads to the government intervening and extending the PAN. The riots of 1966 to 1967 had partly motivated the establishment of country parks as a recreation outlet.10 The infrastructure development of Lantau Island precipitated the gazetting of Lantau North (extension) country park11. The Chief Executive’s commitment in October 2010 to address the issue of country park enclaves followed the widespread public condemnation of a proposed private development at Tai Long Sai Wan12. Indeed, conservation policies have appeared to be improvised and reactive.13

1.1 A different approach is necessaryIt is not uncommon to have an unbalanced approach to coverage of habitats in protected areas globally. However, many nations have embraced a more systematic approach to conservation planning.14 They recognise that improvements are necessary in the process of deciding which areas of land and sea should be included in protected areas.15

The aim of establishing protected areas is to represent the full variety of biodiversity of a given territory; and to ensure the long-term survival of species and associated natural processes.16

Ad hoc development of Hong Kong’s PAN

Aim is to represent and protect biodiversity within the PAN

Brown Wood Owl is a rare breeding species in Hong Kong. It depends on mature secondary forest and feng shui woodlands, making the protection of these habitats critical for their survival

6

In order to achieve this, conservation planning must not only identify appropriate sites that secure key biodiversity features, but also consider the design of the PAN in terms of size, connectivity, uniqueness, and management, along with other factors.17

1.2 Plans, programmes and strategiesRecognising a site’s ecological value means devising and appropriately matching plans, programmes and strategies that befit and enhance that value. Yet, policies designed to promote conservation do not always suit the relative sensitivity of the species and habitats at a given site. A case in point is the 2004 New Nature Conservation Policy (NNCP),18 the only published strategy for nature conservation in Hong Kong.

To date, only three of the 12 priority sites are actively managed under the NNCP’s Management Agreement (MA) programme. The Private-Public-Partnership (PPP) mechanism (another NNCP programme) makes conservation of the sites contingent on private development within the boundaries of sensitive sites. The CBD’s Aichi Biodiversity Targets have emphasised that such perverse incentives should be removed from the equation.21

The 2004 New Nature Conservation Policy is inadequate for biodiversity conservation

Box 1: New nature conservation policy

The 2004 NNCP identified 12 priority sites for enhanced conservation, based on a set of criteria that ranked sites on their ecological value, which in turn were based on accepted global criteria for ecological assessment. Despite its efforts, the NNCP has attracted some criticism; namely for the management response that the policy proposed for conserving the 12 priority sites.19,20 The policy exempts the use of some approaches, such as land exchange and resumption, which have been effective in other countries, in favour of programmes that encourage the private sector and NGOs to fund and manage privately-owned sites.

Public concern over ecological destruction at Tai Long Sai Wan, an enclave in Sai Kung East Country Park – spurred a review of the 76 other enclaves in Hong Kong

Brown Wood Owl is a rare breeding species in Hong Kong. It depends on mature secondary forest and feng shui woodlands, making the protection of these habitats critical for their survival

7

Zoning can prevent harmful land uses, but active management is still necessary

Urgent need for active management

Comprehensive conservation planning is essential

Implementing the NNCP has been a challenge. Solutions for the majority of identified sites are still lacking, and the NNCP falls short of global best practice for conservation management.

The town planning process is another means of protecting ecologically significant sites. The Town Planning Ordinanace provides several zoning types, which prevent incompatible land uses in important habitats. A key benefit is that zoning provisions can be applied on private land, ensuring the biological diversity of such areas is retained. However, zoning is a passive mechanism: it offers no incentive or obligation for landowners to actively manage their land in order to conserve and enhance its conservation value.

Merely prohibiting harmful uses is not enough. Active management is necessary in order to maintain and enhance biodiversity and ecological function.22

There are significant gaps in the mechanisms available for protecting, managing and enhancing Hong Kong’s valuable ecosystems. There is an urgent need for a comprehensive plan for nature conservation if Hong Kong is to protect and enhance its biodiversity assets more effectively than it does now. The CBD can help: it offers a proven framework for biodiversity conservation that distils the best practices from countries worldwide. Now that the CBD extends to cover Hong Kong, the government is required to draft a biodiversity strategy and action plan.

Civic Exchange’s Nature Conservation: a new policy framework for Hong Kong proposes an outline for this strategy and plan.23 These plans can only function when they systematically identify, evaluate, protect, manage and restore the habitats that harbour Hong Kong’s biodiversity. In order to resolve the disconnect between environment and development, it is essential that biodiversity conservation management be included in land use planning.24

Long Valley is one of three sites covered by a Management Agreement under the New Nature Conservation Policy. It is currently managed by the Hong Kong Bird Watching Society and the Conservancy Association

Source: Vicky Yeung, HKBWS8

2.1 Overall objectives for conservation planningConservation planning should be a dynamic process that refines and updates conservation goals, policy design and decision tools as new knowledge accumulates. The process should be guided by two key objectives of effective biodiversity conservation:

• Representation: the need to account for all relevant species and habitats.25 This should be achieved with economy, which emphasises that adequate coverage must be attained at minimum cost and area, given the competing uses of the land.26

• Resilience: strengthening the capacity of ecosystems to adapt to change and unforeseen calamities, so as to ensure the long-term survival of species and habitats.

A resilient ecosystem is one that can withstand and adapt to various forces of change, particularly in view of predicted climatic changes. Understanding resilience requires knowledge of species and habitat location, distribution, migration and dispersal patterns, and other ecological and evolutionary processes.27

2.2 A Framework for systematic conservation planningSystematic conservation planning can be implemented as a five-stage process. The primary purpose is to collect ecological data about sites and species, and to use this information to determine the most appropriate form of protection and management so as to preserve and enhance it. This publication discusses each of the five steps in Figure 1, detailing the types of responsibilities and decisions required throughout the process.

Main aims of conservation planning: representation and resilience

A five-step decision framework

2 Framework: Systematic Conservation Planning

9

Step 5Determine the appropriate management stategies

Step 4Determine Sites for Conservation Action

Step 3Assess Protection Gaps

Step 2Review Goals

Step 1Compile Biodiversity Data

Identify and assess:

• Ecological status of biodiversity (distribution, viability, threat)

• Protection status (governance, effectiveness, and threats)

Set ecological targets based on international responsibilities, local legislation and practice.

Identify gaps in the network by assessing the coverage of key biodiversity locations in the PAN.

Apply decision rules to establish prioritiy sites for conservation action:

• Is the site rare and irreplaceable?

• How vulnerable is the site to threats? Consider design elements of protected areas, i.e. size, connectivitiy, buffer areas.

Determine the management approach by assessing the carrying capacity of sites.

The consevation mechanism chosen should correspond to the site’s management needs.

RESP

ON

SIBL

E BO

DIES

STEP

STA

SKS

Decision-makersConservation Authority

EnvironmentBureau

Figure 1: Steps in systematic conservation planning

10

The first step is to assess how well the PAN protects biodiversity in Hong Kong. A review of available data can clarify what information is available, and draw attention to data gaps and needs in the planning process. Two types of data are necessary – biodiversity and protection status.

3.1 Ecological status of biodiversityIt is essential to conduct a review of the state of biodiversity in Hong Kong in order to assess the PAN’s adequacy to conserve it. As it is not feasible to examine every species or ecosystem for protection gaps, a representative sample of key biodiversity indicators (KBIs) should be investigated instead.

3.1.1 What are the key biodiversity indicators?

KBIs identify important species, assemblages, habitat types and ecological processes that collectively reflect the general health of Hong Kong’s biodiversity. Selecting the right KBIs should be the first step in identifying the gaps in the PAN. KBIs should represent the components of biodiversity that require the most attention.28 The KBIs chosen may depend on data availability29 and be based on groups of species, such as at-risk species, 30 as well as higher-level groupings, including species assemblages, habitat types and ecosystems.31 Using higher-level groupings has its advantages, as it allows for the inclusion of ecological processes – which contribute to the maintenance of ecological resilience – in the KBIs.32 Box 2 outlines the common methods for choosing KBIs.

Civic Exchange has developed a set of headline biodiversity indicators35 that provides a broad picture of the state of biodiversity and the conservation actions being undertaken in Hong Kong.

Setting the baseline

Use indicators to assess the overall state of biodiversity

Key biodiversity indicators (KBIs) should represent biodiversity requiring the most attention

Headline indicators provide a broad picture

3 Step 1: Compile Biodiversity Data

Responsible Body: Conservation Authority

Identify the state of Hong Kong’s biodiversity and the PAN.Ecological status of biodiversity

What are the Key Biodiversity Indicators (species, habitats, processes, or sites)?

• What is the distribution?• What is the current viability?• What are the threats?

Protection status

Is it covered within the PAN?

• What is the management objective (governance type)?

• How effective is the management approach?• What are the threats?

Key

Task

11

1High biodiversity

areas

2Rare / irreplaceable

species

3Vulnerable / threatened

species

4Wide-ranging

species

5Umbrella / Keystone

species

7Cultural significance

6Significant

ecological functions

Box 2: Basic principles for choosing key biodiversity indicators33

1. Choose areas important for biodiversity – areas rich in biodiversity.34

2. Include rare and/or irreplaceable species and systems – e.g. endemic species and unique habitats.

3. Include vulnerable and threatened species and systems – those with low or declining populations.

4. Choose wide-ranging species – species that cover a large area and provide a good indication of the adequacy of the ecosystems that are being conserved.

5. Choose umbrella and keystone species – an indicator species whose protection will indirectly protect other species that share the same habitat (umbrella species), such as top carnivores; or an indicator species that provides an essential ecological function (keystone species), such as insects or earthworms that act as nutrient recyclers.

6. Include ecological functions and processes – these are critical for maintaining the overall ecosystem. Species migration, flooding and fire are examples of processes that could be included, as could areas important for climate change adaptation. Areas that provide key ecosystem services, e.g. for the capture of carbon, flood control or the provision of water, could also be assessed here.

7. Choose species and sites for their cultural significance – places with important social, economic and/or cultural value, e.g. medicinal plants in feng shui woodland.

12

The indicators were developed in consultation with expert stakeholders as part of a wider report, and they act as useful categories from which KBIs can be selected. They include population trends for the Chinese White Dolphin, egrets and herons, dragonflies, and others that serve as flagship (species familiar to the public, and capable of inducing support for conservation) and umbrella species. The report also assesses vulnerable habitats, such as lowland rivers, and the effectiveness of conservation management.

These headline indicators allow for quick assessment of conservation efforts in Hong Kong. The selection of KBIs may, however, require more comprehensive assessments of biodiversity. The 2002 study, Wild Animals to Watch36, is one example of such a comprehensive assessment. That paper groups species based on their distribution and threats. An updated assessment of species, key habitats and processes is necessary for developing a rigorous list of KBIs. It may also serve as a red data list for Hong Kong.

3.1.2. Distribution, viability and threats of key biodiversity indicators

There have been several attempts at collating data on keystone and indicator species, habitats, and ecosystems in Hong Kong. These include the following:

Species data: The spatial assessment undertaken by the University of Hong Kong’s Biodiversity Survey, last updated in 2002, identified 75 priority sites that support high species diversity or rare species.37 This survey sampled biodiversity at predetermined hotspots, and identified sites for priority conservation action at the two best locations for each species studied. The distribution of species hotspots was determined, but the population viability trends and potential threats were not included in the study. The study concluded that protecting the 75 sites will require the safeguarding of an additional two percent of Hong Kong’s land area for conservation.38 This is critical in order to secure the protection of a range of species.

A rudimentary demonstration of species distribution can be found on Eco-map39, an online tool designed by the Agricultural, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD). Eco-map is intended to be visitor-friendly, rather than a tool for spatial assessment and decision-making.

Habitat data and maps: A key study on ecological habitats is the Terrestrial Habitat Mapping and Ranking based on Conservation Value.40 These maps have been reviewed four times since 2000 and were most recently updated in 2008.

More rigorous assessment required for KBIs

HKU Biodiversity Survey found 75 priority sites for protecting vital species

Eco-map provides public-friendly distribution data

Comprehensive habitat mapping and ranking

13

Two maps highlight important areas for protection:41

• A habitat map displays different vegetation types (Figure 2a) across Hong Kong; and

• A conservation assessment map shows the ecological value of sites in the territory (Figure 2b). The map assigns a value of high, medium, low or negligible to different sites, assessing ecological value42 based on:

− Occurrence of rare species;− Ecological function;− Rarity;− Vulnerability;− Size; and− Conservation potential.

The maps assess ecological value for the overall habitat category and for individual sites, acknowledging that ecological value could vary between sites of the same habitat.

Landscape value maps: The Planning Department’s Landscape Character and Value Maps43 ascribe value and sensitivity ratings to different landscape types. These spatial assessments of Hong Kong are incorporated into the HKSAR Government’s sustainability assessment tool (CASET44), a GIS system that is used to predict the sustainability of major development proposals. Unfortunately, there is low awareness of the GIS system, and it is not open to public scrutiny.

Landscape value mapping supports the HKSAR Government’s GIS assessment tool

The beautiful Chinese Greenwing is an indicator of clean streams.

14

Figure 2a: Terrestrial habitat map of Hong Kong

Figure 2b: Conservation assessment (ecological values) map of Hong Kong

(Images courtesy of Institute of Space and Earth Information Science, The Chinese University of Hong Kong)

The beautiful Chinese Greenwing is an indicator of clean streams.

15

Assessment of ecological processes not included

Plotting the distribution and management of the PAN

The PAN is mostly managed by Government. A few are managed by NGOs

All of these studies include some assessment of the distribution, viability and threats to a significant range of species and habitats in Hong Kong. But the data is incomplete, especially for ecological processes that predict the expected degrees of change.45 These processes are difficult to quantify,46 but their inclusion is necessary to ensure that the assessment delivers results that reflect the dynamic nature of biodiversity and ecosystems (Box 3). This is particularly important in view of the rapid rate at which Hong Kong’s natural habitats are transforming; one study has found that lowland forests had increased by 9.98 percent in two years.47

3.2 Protection statusAssessing protection status requires a review of the territory’s PAN and the potential for connecting them across the landscape and seascape. It is also necessary to determine how conservation plans can be linked to other plans for each sector.50 This requires an assessment of the distribution of the PAN, and how each area is managed by identifying their governance type, the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) protected areas management category (Appendix), and the effectiveness of management in meeting conservation goals.

3.2.1 Distribution, governance type, and management effectiveness of the PAN

Information about the PAN is available from the AFCD and the Planning Department. The PANs include other conservation areas under non-governmental management51, such as the Mai Po Marshes Nature Reserve (managed by WWF Hong Kong) and areas under the NNCP’s MA programme. Open-source software such as Google Earth and Protected Planet52 captures the boundaries of these areas at a finer scale.

Box 3: South Africa’s multi-layer GIS mapping

South Africa’s National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment addresses this issue of expected change by including a layer of expert mapping of important ecological and evolutionary processes, combined with habitat and protection level maps, as well as an irreplaceability analysis of species and ecosystems. When these different data are scored, overlaid and summed, a single GIS layer of priority value is produced, with priority areas defined as areas that are very important in one or several of the underlying analyses.48 This analysis is valuable because it acknowledges that the inclusion of species, ecosystems and processes is essential to measures of biodiversity resilience.49

16

Large gap in assessing management effectiveness

The governance type and IUCN categories have been determined for some of Hong Kong’s protected areas (Appendix).53 The AFCD (country parks and nature reserves) and the Town Planning Board (land use zones for conservation) are the primary authorities for designating protected areas. Environmental NGOs manage a number of sites, including Mai Po, Kadoorie Farm & Botanic Garden and the MA sites (Long Valley, Deep Bay fishponds, and Fung Yuen).

The only protected sites that are assessed for management effectiveness are the MA sites, Mai Po Marshes Nature Reserve, and the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar site, as required under the Ramsar Convention.54 Management plans, where they exist, are not made publicly available for other protected areas, most notably the country parks. It is therefore uncertain whether management evaluations are actively conducted for other sites.

Residential developments in Tin Shui Wai were built on former fishponds in the Deep Bay wetlands, an important habitat for Black-faced Spoonbills (foreground) and other wetland-dependent species.

17

4 Step 2: Review Conservation Goals

Responsible Body: Conservation Authority & Environment Bureau

What is the aim?

Goals should correspond with international conventions, and local laws and regulations

It is critical to set goals and targets in order to determine what constitutes an adequate level of biodiversity protection.55

After determining the current state of Hong Kong’s biodiversity, it is essential to:

1. Decide what should be protected;2. Minimise the impacts on what is likely to be lost; and3. Determine what should be improved.

This process requires the development of biodiversity goals and targets, which must be set with close reference to the key principles underlying global best practice and local legislation. These include the ecosystem approach, the avoidance principle and the precautionary principle, which are reflected in the following international conventions that Hong Kong is obliged to meet:

• CBD and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets • The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance

(Ramsar Convention) • Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of

Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) • Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild

Animals (Bonn Convention)

Key laws and regulations in Hong Kong include:

• Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance & Technical Memorandum

• Town Planning Ordinance, Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, and the Master Schedule of Notes

• Ratcliffe Criteria for assessing nature conservation value • Protection of the Harbour Ordinance

Establish and revise conservation targets for biodiversity indicators.These should ensure:

• All relevant species and habitats are represented; and• Ecosystems are resillient and can withstand and absorb change and threats

Key

Task

18

Goals should benchmark representation and resilience

Representation targets usually aim to ensure adequate protection of diverse species or habitats

Resilience targets are more complex and location-specific

4.1 Representation and resilience goalsConservation goals for Hong Kong’s PAN should be based on the underlying aims of achieving:

• Representation (retaining all local habitats, species and genetic diversity)

• Resilience (ensuring this biodiversity is able to survive, thrive and evolve)

Specific targets should be set. This will help determine how much of the landscape is needed to conserve a sufficient sample of species and habitats, and the ecological processes that allow them to persist.

4.2 Setting targets to promote representation and resilience

4.2.1 Representation targets

Targets typically refer to each of the key biodiversity indicators. For instance, factors such as the number of times a species should be present in a habitat, or the total area targeted for occurrence of a vegetation type, can be used to reflect the targeted level of representation.

Network-wide targets covering the whole of Hong Kong can be developed to accompany more specific targets for species and habitats (KBIs) at finer scales. For the UK, an example of a fine-scale target for its native pine woodlands habitat is “to maintain the current extent and distribution of native pine woodland resource (no net loss of 181kha).”56

4.2.2 Resilience targets

Setting targets for enhancing biological processes is complicated. It is therefore more difficult to establish and implement targets for resilience. Expert judgments are therefore often essential for identifying the locations of critical processes for maintaining the viability and resilience of ecosystem function.57 In this regard, South Africa’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan could be of benefit to Hong Kong. It focuses on several aspects that could help Hong Kong produce targets on biological processes.58 These are:

• Ecological connectivity of habitats: qualitative targets or design preferences for the PAN can be set to encourage connectivity on a landscape scale, such as specifying size and adjacency requirements;

• Unchannelised rivers: with few intact river systems left in Hong Kong, preserving and restoring those that remain is especially important for protecting scarce riverine ecological processes;

19

• Areas that support resilience to climate change may also act as important refuges for maintaining species and ecosystem richness, as well as sites for endemism and support for threatened species and ecological communities; and

• Carbon storage: with Hong Kong’s considerable carbon footprint, maintaining vegetation types with high carbon storage capacity is an essential offset activity. A carbon storage score could be assigned to different vegetation types.

Box 4 may be used to add further details that assist in the development of targets for representation and resilience.

Box 4: Types of biodiversity targets

• Ecological thresholds – a tipping point at which an ecosystem changes or degrades, e.g. many forest bird species start to decline after 30 percent of forest are is cleared.

• Categorical targets – a blanket target used when KBI-specific targets are difficult to define, e.g. protect at least 20 percent of all habitat types.

• Distribution targets – increasing the range and targets of a KBI to increase its chances of survival. For rare and threatened biodiversity, this may require an ambitious target to ensure their long-term persistence. For example, ensuring that a species is present in 90 to 100 percent of its habitat sites within protected areas, or increasing their occurrence at sites outside the protected areas.

• Restoration targets – setting protection targets higher than current conditions in highly modified landscapes; e.g. to restore a species in an area where it has been locally exterminated.

• Connectivity targets – enhancing protected areas by identifying a certain number of connectivity corridors; e.g. a percentage of streams which have not been channelised or preserving corridors of agricultural land between country parks.

Left: a segment of the Tung Chung stream in its undisturbed state. Right: the Tung Chung stream after unauthorized straightening and removal of boulders in 2003

20

5 Step 3: Assess Gaps in Conservation Action

Responsible Body: Conservation Authority

How are we doing? The previous step of goal setting focused on the state of biodiversity, irrespective of its protection status. Step 3, meanwhile, assesses how well that biodiversity is being conserved. Hence, data on the degree and success of conservation action is essential for this stage.

By evaluating the effectiveness of the PAN in conserving of key species and habitats, planners can determine the extent to which explicit goals and targets are being met. However, existing protected areas will not contribute much to goals and targets if a systematic approach is not already in place when these goals and targets are first established.59

5.1 Conduct a gap analysis on existing protection of key biodiversity indicatorsIdentifying gaps in the protection of biodiversity depends on the quality of data available (Box 5).

Box 5: Putting Biodiversity and Protection Status data together60

Without detailed maps – using published reports, existing databases and expert knowledge to identify areas and species requiring protection.

With detailed maps – detailed maps of biodiversity and protected areas can be used to determine the distribution and level of protection of species and ecosystems.

With detailed maps plus software – a quantitative approach where technical expertise can identify optimal patterns for PANs. Software that can locate and prioritise gaps in the protected areas includes Marxan, C-Plan, WorldMap and Zonation.

Conduct a gap analysis to determine whether local biodiversity is protected, and where important biodiversity falls outside the PAN.Ke

y Ta

sk

Left: a segment of the Tung Chung stream in its undisturbed state. Right: the Tung Chung stream after unauthorized straightening and removal of boulders in 2003

21

Gaps can be rapidly identified with existing maps

Key information gaps in planning

Even without additional data collection, conservation planners in Hong Kong can use existing data to make a simple analysis of protection gaps. For example, it is possible to identify unprotected areas of ecological importance by overlaying a map of the existing protected areas in Hong Kong61 with the Conservation Assessment Map (Figure 2b), which quickly outlines the ecological value of different habitats. However such studies may identify more sites needing conservation action than the responsible authority is immediately able to handle. A good example is the identification of the 77 country park enclaves that will require rezoning or absorption into the country park network.

5.2 Conduct an analysis of information gaps for conservation planningInadequate conservation planning can reduce the ability of the PAN to protect biodiversity.

In Hong Kong, the absence of published biodiversity assessments and conservation plans is a major obstacle to effective conservation planning. Such information is critical to knowing the relative success of conservation action, and what future actions should be prioritised. The conservation authority must address the following information gaps:

• Red Data List for Hong Kong – identifies local endangered species,

• Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan – a framework for nature conservation, outlining the measures to be taken to meet CBD targets,

• Management Plans for protected areas (e.g. country parks), and

• Resource allocation for enforcement against threats (e.g. illegal trashing).

This information is critical to effective conservation planning. Decision-makers should therefore expect the conservation authority to make such details and plans available.

22

Illegal dumping and trashing of ecologically-sensitive sites is one of the biggest threats to nature conservation in Hong Kong. There is an urgent need to enhance surveillance and enforcement measures

All photos were taken in She Shan, Lam Tsuen

23

Sophisticated assessment of protection gaps can help to determine priorities for conservation action. It is important to set priorities in scenarios where conservation authorities lack the resources to ensure the protection of every important site at the same time.

6.1 IrreplaceabilityHighly irreplaceable areas are those that hold endemic or rare species and habitats, and these should be represented (included) in the PAN as a matter of priority. Unless such action is taken, key conservation targets will not be reachable.62 It is harder to meet conservation targets with less irreplaceable sites.

It is important to note that irreplaceability is a dynamic indicator. It should be recalculated as conservation targets are met, or as the type and degree of threat changes.

6.2 VulnerabilityVulnerability refers to the likelihood that a species or habitat will be lost or damaged due to the impact of ecological or human threats, and how soon this may happen. Since the degree of threat will change over time, anticipated changes in land use should be included in considering the vulnerability of a site.63

6.3 A key tool for establishing priority sitesInformation on vulnerability and irreplaceability of sites can be combined so as to provide a basis for prioritising protection and scheduling actions for these sites. This is often done by plotting sites on two axes (Figure 3).

The position of the sites on the graph may shift as decisions are made across Hong Kong, or when circumstances change. As a site is destroyed, degraded or finds alternative uses, the relevance of other sites for meeting biodiversity targets increases, moving them towards the red areas in Figure 3.

6 Step 4: Determine Sites for Conservation Action

Responsible Body: Decision-makers

Which sites to prioritise?

Assessing rarity

Indicators must be regularly reviewed

Assessing threats

Combining both indicators helps with setting priorities

Ranking will change as action is taken

Determine the priority for protecting different sites by assessing their:• Irreplaceability – holds endemic or rare species and habitats; and• Vulnerability – to human or ecological threats. Ke

y Ta

sk

24

Conversely, as high priority sites are conserved and included into the PAN, other sites become less important for meeting biodiversity targets, shifting sites towards the lower left quadrant in Figure 3.

It is important to recognise that the conservation value of different areas can vary over time. Current site selection decisions in Hong Kong tend to consider a site’s static value only; e.g. species richness or rare and threatened species, without reflecting the comparative state of other areas.65 Ideally Hong Kong should have a system that takes account of how a site’s value can change depending on its contribution towards meeting wider conservation targets. Such a system can provide a degree of flexibility in conservation planning that may ultimately accommodate alternative or competing land uses.

Site value will reflect how it fulfils key conservation goals

Quadrant 1: highly irreplaceable and highly vulnerable to human disturbance and physical destruction. This quadrant should include the most valuable sites for meeting conservation goals, and should be given the highest priority for protection, e.g. Sha Lo Tung.

Quadrant 2: sites are vulnerable to loss but replaceable. Holding measures, such as zoning provisions, should be applied to these sites to prevent other sites from moving into Quadrant 1.

Quadrant 3: the risk of disturbance may be low, but these sites are considered highly irreplaceable and unique. There is less urgency for conservation action on these sites compared to those in Quadrant 1 and 2. As they do not face a high degree of development threat, acquisition of these sites may be more feasible. For example, country parks, though varied in ecological value, predominantly lie witin quadrant 3. They are much less vulnerable due to their designation.

Quadrant 4: sites of low irreplaceability and vulnerability that require the least intervention. Regular monitoring is advised.

Figure 3: Framework for prioritising sites64

High

High

Low

Irrep

lace

abili

ty(R

arity

)

Vulnerability (Threat)

E.g. Tai LongSai Wan

E.g. Country Parks

E.g. Sha Lo Tung1

234

25

6.4 Framework compatibilityThe prioritisation framework is compatible with other measures of species and habitat viability. A useful complement is to consider species and habitats that are globally, regionally or locally threatened.

6.4.1 Globally threatened

A globally threatened species may be one that is highly restricted (i.e. unique to an ecological location), located in a habitat that is isolated, fragmented or vulnerable to change and destruction66, or its world population has declined drastically. The Hong Kong Paradise Fish is an example of a globally threatened species. It is restricted to a thin belt covering coastal East Guangdong and Hong Kong, and is found in freshwater marshes that are rapidly declining in quantity and quality. Given the international significance of this fish, the highest priority should be placed on protecting sites where this and similarly threatened species can be found (Quadrant 1, Figure 3).

6.4.2 Locally threatened

A locally threatened species is one that experiences a serious degree of threat to its local population, but has viable populations elsewhere. Depending on its role and functions in the local ecosystem, its protection is significant and is likely to be located in Quadrant 2 (Figure 3).

A site’s priority reflects the significance of its species and habitats

A higher priority

Lower priority

Photo 10: Farmland in Hong Kong is important for Black-Collared Starling, a species which is much less abundant on more intensively farmed agricultural areas in China

Photo 9: The regionally-endemic Chinese Grassbird depends on grassland habitats in upland areas. These are suffering encroachment from progressive regeneration of shrubland and forest through natural succession

Source: Beetle Cheng, HKBWS

26

6.5 Design considerations for selecting protected areasBesides a site’s relative irreplaceability and vulnerability, certain design and location features can raise its priority for protection. These features can include the site’s size (larger is better), shape and alignment, connectivity or adjacency to other key habitats and width of buffers.67 These elements may be difficult to quantify, but they can render the protection of the site, or collection of sites, more effective. A recent example of this in Hong Kong is the adoption, in principle, of the proposal to include privately owned and ecologically important enclaves within re-drawn country park boundaries, providing protection for these areas because of their location within or close to the country parks network.68

6.6 Decision rules in realityIn real-life situations, there may be good reason to prioritise conservation actions for other reasons. Opportunity, cost factors and other values are among the most common.

• Opportunity: Cowling et al.69 and Pressey and Bottrill70 have suggested that with limited resources, greater emphasis should be placed on opportunities that arise, rather than focusing only on areas of high irreplaceability and vulnerability. Quadrant 1 (Figure 3) sites are not always available and a narrow focus on protecting only the best sites may create a risk of securing none at all. Therefore, an opportunistic approach should be taken for sites in Quadrants 2, 3 and 4.71

• Cost: In light of typically tight conservation budgets, adding cost into an analysis of site priority is relevant. A site may become available at a much higher or lower price than predicted. It would be resource-inefficient to re-do an entire analysis based on new cost parameters each time prices become available at a site. However, Cawardine et al.72 suggested that sites with extremely high (Quadrant 1 in Figure 3) or low conservation values (Quadrant 4 in Figure 3), maintain their priority status regardless of changes in price. They are unlikely to navigate across quadrants. Hence, planners should not be deterred from making conservation decisions for high and low value sites, as cost data should not influence site priority.

• Other values: Although this paper emphasises the ecological value of a site, other values may strengthen the case for its protection. These may include landscape, recreation, education, culture and heritage values. It is often the combination of several of these values at a given site that account for its total value to the community. It is important to ensure that action or management of these additional values does not compromise the ecological resilience of the site.

Design and location can influence a site’s priority for protection

Real-life considerations of opportunity, cost and other values may affect site priority

27

The final step in systematic conservation planning is to decide the most appropriate conservation mechanism for safeguarding a site. The most suitable mechanism depends on the degree of management required to conserve and enhance a site’s ecological value.

7.1 Determine the carrying capacityA useful method for determining the management needs of a site is the concept of carrying capacity. This has two components:

1. “[Ecological] carrying capacity is the capacity of an ecosystem to support healthy organisms while maintaining its productivity, adaptability, and capability of renewal ”73 .

2. In management terms carrying capacity generally refers to the ability of a site to cope with a given number of visitors. This is referred to as the visitor carrying capacity of a site.

These components must be considered together in order to determine the most appropriate form of management for the site. It should be done in the following order.

1. Determine Ecological Carrying Capacity This can be established by asking: “What conditions are

critical to a site’s value, and how do we attain and maintain those conditions?”74

2. Management Need What is the management required to protect this ecological

capacity? Mai Po, for example, requires active monitoring and action to control water levels, in order to maintain a hospitable habitat for wintering migratory birds.

7 Step 5: Determine the Appropriate Management Strategies

Responsible Body: Decision-makers

What is the best management approach?

Carrying capacity regulates uses while sustaining value

A site’s carrying capacity determines the management need

Apply the best conservation mechanism based on the management need.

• Assess the ecological carrying capacity of sites to determine the management need; and• Determine the appropriate conservation mechanism to accomplish the required conservation

objective. Key

Task

28

3. Assess Visitor Carrying Capacity Assessment of visitor carrying capacity is a complex process that

requires the consideration of a range of factors to determine the acceptable level of impact and how to prevent this level from being exceeded. It involves asking questions about the type of potential uses (how would people like to use the site?), user loads (how many people would use the site for this purpose?), or seasonal usage (how will usage change throughout the year?).

4. Reassessing Management Once this has been determined, the likely impacts of different

uses can be assessed and different management strategies can be adopted to ensure these uses do not compromise the ecological carrying capacity of the site. Strategies could include limiting access, curbing visitor numbers, channelling users to more resilient parts of the site or creating facilities to control the spread of adverse impacts.

Adverse impacts on a site may not become apparent until the site is established, managed and monitored as a protected area. Impacts will also become more evident as visitor use intensifies. Therefore, carrying capacity may change over time and managers of protected areas must conduct regular monitoring and reviews.

Thresholds should be established, and these will need to be regularly updated as new research and monitoring data improves managers’ understanding of a site and its carrying capacity75. These considerations should be a core component of adaptive management plans for sites of high ecological value, and a strategic plan for the PAN as a whole.

Different uses have different impacts

Carrying capacity may change as use or impact influences ecological function

Yung Shue O, an unprotected wetlands on the eastern side of Hong Kong, is a privately owned enclave adjacent to the Sai Kung East Country Park

29

7.2 Determine the appropriate conservation mechanismA number of mechanisms created with differing intentions, authority and resources are used to conserve Hong Kong’s natural areas. Consequently, a range of options already exists for managing sites that are currently unprotected. Hong Kong’s country parks, for example, have gradually been developed to facilitate a range of recreational uses. The country park authority (AFCD) is obliged to maintain the conservation value of park areas, but it is vital that AFCD have an effective and well-resourced management plan in order to identify and mitigate potential threats. No such plans currently exist; therefore AFCD’s capacity to adequately undertake proactive conservation management of the country parks is limited.

SSSIs, on the other hand, are a mechanism that is applied to prevent incompatible land uses in areas recognised for their high ecological value. Such places might require strong biodiversity management. Yet SSSIs and other zonings under the Town Planning Ordinance are passive in nature, and the zoning does not imply or require any active management. As such, they remain relatively vulnerable to changes in habitat, especially from natural succession.

Insufficient resources are often a significant problem for the most ecologically sensitive sites. An irreplaceable and vulnerable site might only be able to tolerate limited recreational users, but if no resources are available to set up an appropriate management system, then uncontrolled access could compromise that site’s ecological value. The best course of action in such cases may be to prohibit access almost entirely. This could mean designating a site as a restricted area (perhaps with the capacity for enabling specialist permit-controlled access).

Hong Kong’s country parks support both conservation and recreation

SSSI zoning restricts harmful uses but active management is limited

Insufficient resources often prevent proper management

Carrying capacity will vary depending on the intensity of use

30

7.3 Hong Kong’s unprotected sites of high ecological valueA number of gaps in the PAN have been identified over the years. These include the 12 priority sites for enhanced conservation that were recognised by the HKSAR Government in the 2004 NNCP;76 the 77 privately-owned country park enclaves acknowledged in the 2010-2011 Policy Address (Figure 4); and the 75 sites of high species diversity as identified during the University of Hong Kong’s Biodiversity Survey, all of which require protection so as to sustain their ecological value. In each case there have been significant delays in applying appropriate protection mechanisms to the identified sites.77

As Figure 5 shows, there is some overlap between the 12 sites and areas currently protected under the MA, SSSI and Special Area mechanisms. Despite their similarity, not all of these mechanisms provide the degree of resources and active management that priority sites are likely to require to safeguard their ecological value in the long run.78

The 77 enclaves face a similar dilemma. Enclaves are pockets of privately-owned land that were not included in the country parks network during its initial designation, due to a policy to exclude private lots held by indigenous villagers. In a welcome turnaround of the decades-long policy, the government recently announced that country park boundaries could be re-gazetted to absorb the enclaves into the country parks.79 The proposal notes that private land should not be automatically excluded from the country parks network, and that the ecological compatibility with the adjoining country park could be an overriding factor for its inclusion.80

This initiative provides a degree of assurance that ecologically valuable enclaves can acquire legal protection under the Country Parks Ordinance81. Yet, active management is necessary to provide sufficient protection for enclave areas – and AFCD’s current capacity to manage the country parks must be strengthened to enable it to protect and enhance these ecologically sensitive areas. The country parks network as a whole covers large areas with varying management needs, zoning within the parks system, as initially suggested by Talbot and Talbot82, should be reconsidered as a way of demarcating areas of ecological sensitivity.

The MA programme has also been proposed as a mechanism for protecting country park enclaves, with the Environment and Conservation Fund (ECF) opening applications for MAs in country park enclaves as of December 2011.83 This mechanism may be appealing for enclaves that require active management. However, recent proposals for removing the need for MA proponents to become financially self-sufficient still do not create the incentive for long-term conservation planning. This is because the maximum – albeit renewable – funding period for MAs is just three years.84

Many key sites lie outside the PAN

… but not all of the mechanisms provide adequate safeguards

Improving protection for ecologically-important enclaves

Country parks need adequately resourced management plans

Management Agreements are one way to protect and manage enclaves

31

Figu

re 4

: AFC

D ha

s ide

ntifie

d m

any

of H

ong

Kong

’s pl

aces

of c

onse

rvati

on im

port

ance

, inc

ludi

ng th

e ex

istin

g 21

cou

ntry

par

ks, 1

2 pr

iorit

y si

tes o

f hi

gh e

colo

gica

l im

port

ance

for e

nhan

ced

cons

erva

tion,

and

77

coun

try

park

enc

lave

s.

(Sou

rce:

AFC

D)

32

Figure 5: Existing Conservation Mechanisms in Hong Kong

Conservation Areas

Special Areas

SSSI

PPP

MA

Greenbelt

12 Priority Sites (NNCP)

Country Parks

High

Low

Irrep

lace

abili

ty (R

arity

)

Vulnerability (Threat) High

The feng shui woodlands at Fung Yuen (foreground) are managed by the Tai Po Environmental Association under the NNCP’s MA to protect butterflies. The surrounding agricultural land is subject to intense development pressure

33

Planning becomes a powerful tool for biodiversity conservation, especially when decision-makers are able to assess options against a pre-established and comprehensive baseline of information on biodiversity and territory-wide biodiversity goals and targets. Systematic planning should make it possible for site-level decisions (Step 5) to be informed by, and assessed against, Hong Kong’s broad biodiversity goals and priorities (Steps 2, 3, 4). In turn, management activities (Step 5) should incorporate monitoring, management auditing, reporting and review of outcomes that can progressively strengthen the overall body of biodata (Step 1) and, by extension, any future planning.

One implicit assumption of this framework is that conservation planning is an ongoing, adaptive process. It is rare for all priority sites in a region to be conserved at the same time. It should be recognised that as environmental quality improves at existing and top priority sites, the priority of other candidate sites diminishes, because conservation targets are gradually being met. Conversely, where sites of high ecological value are damaged and lost, the need to act swiftly and with greater resources to protect surviving sites increases in due proportion.

Conservation planning is not intended to exclude all sites from development. Improving the environmental quality of some sites can open up other sites of lesser ecological importance for alternative use. In this way, systematic conservation planning can be synchronised with other societal goals.

Beyond the obvious appeal to conservation practitioners, a systematic approach to conservation planning can operate in tandem with other planning instruments. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process helps to mainstream ecosystem-scale environmental considerations into the development of individual projects.

Designated projects can destroy, mitigate, or restore ecologically important areas, but their execution should never decrease Hong Kong’s capacity to meet its biodiversity goals85. One of Hong Kong’s major challenges is the cumulative biodiversity impact of multiple development projects, particularly as the impacts of individual projects are currently considered separately.

This framework paper recommends the establishment of biodiversity goals and targets, which would be allowed to shift in response to ecological improvements or degradation. Such dynamic targets can be used to determine how tolerable the impacts of future development projects are.

8 Conclusion: A Model for Hong Kong’s Conservation PractitionersOngoing monitoring of management plans is essential

Adaptive management is critical in a changing environment

Conservation planning should complement overall land use planning

Conservation goals can help determine the acceptability of development projects

34

A greater commitment to nature conservation is vital

Baselines and cumulative impacts of EIA projects are notoriously difficult to measure. As a result, it would be extremely useful to adopt an approach that accounts for the severity of threats of a development on landscape-scale resilience.

The incorporation of ecological values into decision-making becomes much more reliable and less daunting with systematic conservation planning. However, a commitment to conservation is still a chief prerequisite. Tools that provide assurances of environmental quality are invaluable and desperately needed in Hong Kong.

Land use decisions about key undeveloped sites, such as the Frontier Closed Area, can be made less contentious when Hong Kong’s conservation goals are clear from the outset

35

Endnotes1. The Hong Kong Council of Social Service (2008).

“Country park, marine park, SSSI, RAMSAR sites [protected land] as a percentage of total land area”, Social Indicators of Hong Kong, http://www.socialindicators.org.hk/en/indicators/environmental_quality/23.1 (accessed 23 Feb 2012).

2. Friends of the Country Parks (2008), More than Trees – the story of reforestation, http://www.hknature.net/eng/habitate/index2.html. (accessed 24 April 2012).

3. Dudgeon, D., Corlett, R. (2004). The Ecology and Biodiversity of Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Joint Publishing (HK) Ltd.

4. Country parks were initially established to secure water catchments, ensuring that water reservoirs are not further degraded through afforestation efforts on the fringes of reservoirs.

5. Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-home/main/ramsar/1_4000_0__ (accessed 15 April 2012).

6. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (2011). Mai Po Inner Deep Bay RAMSAR Site Management Plan, http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/con_wet/con_wet_look/con_wet_look_man/files/RSMPII.pdf (accessed 15 August 2011).

7. Yip, J.Y., Corlett, R.T. & Dudgeon, D. (2004). “A fine-scale gap analysis of the existing protected area system in Hong Kong, China”, Biodiversity and Conservation. 13, p. 952.

8. Note 7.9. Note 3, p.271.10. The first country parks in Hong Kong were established

in 1977, in response to the 1966 to 1967 riots when the need for more open space for the population became apparent; Jim, C.Y. (1985) “The Country Parks Programme and Countryside Conservation in Hong Kong”, The Environmentalist. 6(4), pp. 259-270.

11. The Lantau North (extension) Country Park was established as a response to the development of the Chek Lap Kok International Airport, Tung Chung, and connecting roads and railroads between the island and the Hong Kong mainland.

12. The much publicised Tai Long Sai Wan incident drew attention to the threat from developers on country park enclaves across the territory; Country and Marine Parks Board (2011). Review of the Criteria for Designating Country Parks and Proposed Measures for Protecting Country Park Enclaves. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Working Paper: WP/CMPB/6/2011.

13. Kilburn, M., & Kendrick, R. (2011). Nature Conservation: a new policy framework for Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Civic Exchange, http://www.civic-exchange.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/110121NatureConservationEN.pdf (assecced 18 July 2012).

14. Linke, S., Turak, E. & Nel, J. (2011). “Freshwater conservation planning: the case for systematic approaches”, Freshwater Biology. 56, pp. 6-20.

15. Meir, E., Andelman, S. & Possingham, H.P. (2004). “Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world?”, Ecology Letters. 7, pp. 615-622.

16. Margules, C.R. & Pressey, R.L. (2000). “Systematic Conservation Planning”, Nature. 405, pp. 243-253.

17. Ibid.18. Legislative Council Panel on Environmental Affairs

(2004). New Nature Conservation Policy, http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr04-05/english/panels/ea/papers/ea1122cb1-214-1-e.pdf (accessed 10 July 2011).

19. World Wide Fund for Nature (2009). Progress of implementation of the new nature conservation policy, http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr08-09/english/panels/ea/papers/ea0330cb1-1220-3-e.pdf (accessed 15 July 2011).

20. Civic Exchange (2004). Response to ETWB’s New Nature Conservation Policy, http://civic-exchange.org/en/live/upload/files/200412_ResponseETWB.pdf (accessed 23 December 2011).

21. See Target 3; Convention on Biological Diversity, Aichi Biodiversity Targets, http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets (accessed 22 August 2011).

22. Lau, W. (2011). Adaptive Governance for Hong Kong’s Country Parks Network. Civic Exchange, Hong Kong, http://www.civic-exchange.org/wp/110829countrypark_en (accessed 6 September 2012).

23. Note 13.24. Pierce, S.M., Cowling, R.M., Knight, A.T., Lombard, A.T.,

Rouget, M., & Wolf, T. (2004). “Systematic conservation planning products for land-use planning: interpretation for implementation”, Biological Conservation. 125, pp. 441-458.

25. Note 16.26. Note 14.27. Sarkar, S., Pressey, R.L., Faith, D.P., Margules, C.R.,

Fuller, T., Stoms, D.M., Moffett, A., Wilson, K.A., Williams, K.J., Williams, P.H., Andelman, S. (2006). “Biodiversity Conservation Planning Tools: present status and challenges for the future”, Annual Review of Environmental Resources. 31, pp. 123-159.

28. Sakar, S., & Illoldi-Rangel, P. (2010). “Systematic Conservation Planning: an updated protocol”, Natureza & Conservação. 8(1) , p. 22.

29. Groves, C.R., Jensen, D.B., Valutis, L.L., Redford, K.H., Shaffer, M.L., Scott, J.M., Baumgartner, J.V., Higgins, J.V., Beck, M.W., & Anderson, M.G. (2002). “Planning for Biodiversity Conservation: putting conservation science into practice”, BioScience. 52(6), p. 502.

30. Note 28.31. Ibid.32. Note 16, p. 245.33. Convention on Biological Diversity. Module 1:

Protected Area Network Design – Lesson 2: Assessing the Ecological and Protection Status, https://www.conservationtraining.org/course/view.php?id=53&page=103 (accessed 10 October 2011).

36

34. Alpha diversity refers to species abundance at evaluation site, while beta diversity is a measure of assemblage comparisons between sites.

35. Note 13.36. Fellowes, J.R., Lau, M.W.N., Dudgeon, D., Reels, G.T.,

Ades, G.W.J., Carey, G.J., Chan, B.P.L., Kendrick, R.C., Lee, K.S., Leven, M.R., Wilson, K.D.P., & Yu, T.Y. (2002). “Wild animals to watch: terrestrial and freshwater fauna of conservation concern in Hong Kong”, Memoirs of the Hong Kong Natural History Society. No. 25, June.

37. Yip, J.Y., Corlett, R.T., & Dudgeon, D. (2006). “Selecting small reserves in a human-dominated landscape: a case study of Hong Kong, China”, Journal of Environmental Management. 78, pp. 86-96.

38. Ibid.39. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department.

Hong Kong Live Eco-map, http://www.hkecomap.net (accessed 15 February 2012).

40. Environmental Resources Management (ERM) (2009). 2008 Update of Terrestrial Habitat Mapping and Ranking Based on Conservation Value. Report submitted to Sustainable Development Division, HKSAR Government.

41. Ibid, p. 2.42. Ibid, p. 11. 43. The HKSAR Planning Department’s final report on

landscape and value mapping can be accessed at the following link: Planning Department (2005). Landscape Value Mapping of Hong Kong. HKSAR Government, http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/p_study/prog_s/landscape/e_executive_summary_hp/es_index.htm. Accessed on 17 July 2011; for landscape character and value maps at the territory-wide scale, see: Advisory Council on the Environment (2005). Landscape Character and Value Maps of Hong Kong. Planning Department, ACE Paper 21/2005, http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/boards/advisory_council/files/ace_212005_fig1-2.pdf (accessed 21 July 2011).

44. CASET stands for Computer-aided Sustainability Evaluation Tool.

45. Note 37.46. Note 16.47. Note 40, p. 103.48. Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Jonas, Z., Cowling, R.M., Driver,

A., Maze, K., & Desmet, P. (2007). “Developing products for conservation decision-making: lessons from a spatial biodiversity assessment for South Africa”, Diversity and Distributions. 13, pp. 603-619.

49. Ibid.50. Ibid.51. Information about the protected areas network in Hong

Kong is sporadically located within the publications of the HKSAR government. The Planning Department provides a map of the network of country parks and special areas: Planning Department (2005). Planning Standards and Guidelines, http://www.pland.gov.hk/pland_en/tech_doc/hkpsg/full/ch10/ch10_fig_1.htm. Accessed on 4 January 2012. Details about the size and location of country parks are available at the AFCD website: Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (8 April, 2011). Country Parks in Hong Kong, http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/country/cou_lea/cp_sa.html. Accessed on 30 December 2011. A coarse-scale map of the country parks network, including the

12 priority sites for enhanced conservation under the New Nature Conservation Policy, and 77 identified country park enclaves, can be found here: Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (August, 2011). List of Sites for Implementation of Nature Conservation Management Agreement Projects, http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/con_nncp/con_nncp_new/files/map_eng.jpg (accessed 30 December 2011).The Planning Department identifies, in a territory-wide map, the different areas under conservation zoning: Town Planning Board. Statutory Planning Portal, http://www.ozp.tpb.gov.hk/default.aspx (accessed 17 August 2012). The Lands Department provides a more general mapping tool that shows geographical information such as the topography, rivers and streams, which can be useful for assessing the geographical features of sites in Hong Kong: Lands Department. GeoInfo Map, http://www2.map.gov.hk/gih3/view/index.jsp (accessed 17 August 2012).

52. Protected planet harnesses the data from the World Database on Protected Areas; International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) & United Nations Environment Programme – World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Protected Planet, http://www.protectedplanet.net (accessed 30 December 2011).

53. United Nations Environment Programme & International Union for the Conservation of Nature, World Database on Protected Areas, http://www.protectedplanet.net/search?country_id=97 (accessed 10 October 2011).

54. The Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar site as a whole is managed by the AFCD, which is obliged under the Ramsar Convention to publish a periodic management plan: Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (2011). Mai Po-Inner Deep Bay RAMSAR Site Management Plan, http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/con_wet/con_wet_look/con_wet_look_man/files/RSMPII.pdf (accessed 7 October, 2011). WWF, which manages the Mai Po Marshes Nature Reserve, has the following published plan: World Wide Fund for Nature (2006). Management Plan for the Mai Po Marshes Wildlife Education Centre and Nature Reserve, http://assets.wwfhk.panda.org/downloads/mpmp_v12_22jun06__combined.pdf (accessed 3 January 2012).

55. Note 28.56. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,

“National Action Plan — Native Pine Woodlands”, Biodiversity Action Reporting System, United Kingdom, http://ukbars.defra.gov.uk/plans/national_plan.asp?HAP=%7B00F99395-941C-46E5-8D2C-110801992A0E%7D (accessed 30 December 2011).

57. Note 48.58. Ibid.59. Note 16.60. Note 33.61. See Note 51 for maps of the protected areas network in

Hong Kong.62. Note 27.63. Gaston, K.J., Pressey, R.L., & Margules, C.R. (2002).

“Persistence and vulnerability: retaining biodiversity in the landscape and in protected areas”, Journal of Biosciences. 27(4), pp. 361-384.

37

64. Note 16, p. 251; Pressey, R.L. & Bottrill, M.C. (2008). “Opportunism, Threats and the Evolution of Systematic Conservation Planning”, Conservation Biology. 22(5), p. 1343.

65. Note 16.66. Gärdenfors, U. (2001). “Classifying threatened species

at national versus global levels”, Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 16(9), pp. 511-516.

67. Note 27; Pressey, R.L. (1999). “Systematic Conservation Planning for the real world” — editorial. In P. Goriup (ed.), Parks 9(1), pp. 1-5. World Commission on Protected Areas, IUCN.

68. Note 12.69. Cowling, R.M., Knight, A.T., Privett, S.D.J. & Sharma,

G. (2009). “Invest in Opportunity, Not Inventory of Hotspots”, Conservation Biology. 24(2), pp. 633-635.

70. Note 64 — Pressey & Bottrill (2008).71. Grantham, H. S., Wilson, K.A., Moilanen, A., Rebelo, T. &

Possingham. H.P. (2009). “Delaying conservation actions for improved knowledge: how long should we wait?”, Ecology Letters. 12, pp. 293–301.

72. Carwardine, J., Wilson, K.A., Hajkowicz, S.A., Smith, R.J., Klein, C.J., Watts, M. & Possingham, H.P. (2010). “Conservation Planning when Costs are Uncertain”, Conservation Biology. 24(6), pp. 1529-1537.

73. Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (2001). Integrating Biodiversity into the Tourism Sector: best practice guidelines. Report submitted to UNEP/UNDP/GEF/BPSP, p. 22.

74. McCool, S.F. (13-14 August 1996). Limits of Acceptable Change: a framework for managing national protected areas: experiences from the United States. Paper presented at Workshop on Impact Management in Marine Parks, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

75. Note 22.76. Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department

(2006). List of Priority Sites for Enhanced Conservation, http://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/con_nncp/con_nncp_list/con_nncp_list.html (accessed 13 December 2011).

77. So far, only two of the 12 sites are been actively managed under the MA programme, meaning the majority of them are unprotected and potentially exposed to exploitation and destruction; World Wide Fund for Nature (2008). Progress of implementation of the new nature conservation policy. Submitted to LegCo Panel on Environmental Affairs, meeting on 28 April 2008.

78. The MA programme, in particular, fails to fulfil an important requirement of ecologically significant sites: the need to protect these areas in perpetuity. The programme is financed by the Environment and Conservation Fund, a government funding initiative that requires applicants to reapply every three years, and to demonstrate that the project/site will become self-sustaining; Advisory Council on the Environment — Nature Conservation Subcommittee (2011). New Nature Conservation Policy: Review of the Management Agreement Scheme. NCSC Paper 02/2011, http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/boards/advisory_council/files/ncsc_paper02_2011.pdf (accessed 21 July 2011).

79. Note 12.80. Ibid.

81. Country Park Ordinance, Cap. 208, http://www.hklii.org/hk/legis/en/ord/208 (accessed 27 August 2011).

82. Talbot, L. M. & Talbot, M. H. (1965). Conservation of the Hong Kong Countryside: Summary Report and Recommendation. Hong Kong: Government Printer.

83. Environmental Protection Department (2011, December). Environment and Conservation Fund: Nature conservation management agreement projects: guide to application, http://www.ecf.gov.hk/doc/ma_guide_e.pdf (accessed 3 January 2012).

84. Environment and Conservation Fund (2011). Arrangements to Implement Conservation and Development Proposals Involving the Priority Sites for Enhanced Conservation and Review of the Management Agreement Scheme. ECF Paper 14/2011-12, http://www.ecf.gov.hk/doc/ECF_Paper_14_2011-12.pdf (accessed on 3 January 2012).

85. De Villiers, C., Brownlie, S. & Manuel, J. (2008, May 4-8). Biodiversity Mainstreaming and EIA: Art, Science or Myth. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment, Perth, Australia.

86. Note 52.87. Dudley, N. (Ed.) (2008). Guidelines for Applying

Protected Area Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

88. Note 12, Annex 2.89. Ibid.90. Note 90, p. 20.91. Ibid., p. 16.92. Country Parks Ordinance, Cap. 208, s.4.93. Marine Parks Ordinance, Cap. 476, s.3.94. Note 51.95. Note 52.96. Note 90, p. 17.

38

The IUCN protected areas management categories were developed to emphasise a range of management objectives that contribute to conserving the environment. They were formulated to facilitate national or regional authorities in planning, information management (developing best practice standards) and regulating activities in protected areas.

According to Protected Planet, which sources its information from the World Database on Protected Areas, Hong Kong’s protected areas fall within either category IV or V.86 Where a site is marked as “unknown”, it suggests that the information available is inconclusive, and insufficient for making an assessment of the site’s intended management objectives.

The IUCN protected areas management categories87 include:

Category Ia: Strict nature reserve (managed mainly for science)Category Ib: Wilderness area (managed for wilderness protection)Category II: National park (managed for ecosystem conservation and recreation)Category III: Natural monument or feature (conservation of specific natural feature)Category IV: Habitat/species management area (conservation through management intervention)Category V: Protected landscape/seascapeCategory VI: Protected area with sustainable use of natural resources

Category IV – special areas, restricted areas, marine reserves

Special areas tend to contain important “flora, fauna, geological, cultural or archaeological features”88,and are likely to be fragments of an ecosystem, such as a unique woodland area. The emphasis is placed on conservation, as intensive recreational activities are not compatible.89 This corresponds well with its category IV designation, which focuses on the conservation of native species and habitats. Active management is a key feature of category IV sites; therefore the conservation authority must ensure that management plans are in place and that resources are adequate to achieve its management objectives.

Category V – country parks, marine parks and selected special areas

Much of Hong Kong’s countryside has experienced a high degree of disturbance, and has only in the last few decades been reforested. This has occurred in country parks with the spread of secondary forests through natural succession, however native vegetation diversity is important for local biodiversity to flourish. Restoration of

Appendix: Hong Kong’s protected areas under IUCN management categoriesIUCN provides a global standard

Hong Kong sites are mostly Category IV and V

39

the landscape should be a key aspect of country park management, but the IUCN category V designation may not be appropriate to deliver this. The primary objective of category V is to sustain natural values “created by interaction with humans through traditional management practices”90. Country parks no longer encompass traditional practices such as agriculture, despite many of these areas been formed and shaped by these practices. A more suitable designation may be category II, which aims to protect natural biodiversity, underlying ecological structure and processes, while promoting education and recreation.91 This corresponds with the objectives of country and marine parks, as stated in the Country Parks Ordinance92 and Marine Parks Ordinance.93 However, the current absence of biodiversity management plans undermine this objective.

Unknown – SSSIs

The IUCN category to which SSSIs belong is classified as “unknown”. The purpose for SSSI zoning is to protect Hong Kong’s rare and unique species and habitats, by deterring human activities and development.94 However, the management objective for this designation is ambiguous. There is limited conservation management on site, and what little management there is on site is accomplished without a published management plan.

Not Included – Hong Kong Geopark of China

Inaugurated in November 2009, Hong Kong’s geopark network was established to promote the conservation of unique landforms and geological landscapes. The Protected Planet’s list of protected areas95 (Figure A1) in Hong Kong does not include geoparks. However, these should find fit with category III, which aims to protect monuments with outstanding natural features.96

40

Figure A1. IUCN Categories applied to Hong Kong’s protected areas

No. IUCN Category Protected Areas1 IV Cape D’Aguilar Marine Reserve2 IV Chiu Keng Tam Special Area3 IV Kat O Chau Special Area4 IV Lantau Peak Special Area5 IV Ma On Shan Special Area6 IV Mai Po Marshes (Inner Deep Bay) Restricted Area7 IV Mai Shi Chau Special Area8 IV Ng Tung Chai Special Area9 IV Pak Tai To Yan Special Area

10 IV Pat Sin Range Special Area11 IV Pok Fu Lam Special Area12 IV Sham Wan Restricted Area13 IV Shing Mun feng shui Woodland Special Area14 IV Sunset Peak Special Area15 IV Tai Mo Shan Montane Scrub Forest Special Area16 IV Tai Po Kau Nature Reserve17 IV Tsiu Hang Special Area18 IV Tung Lung Fort Special Area19 IV Yim Tso Ha Egretry Restricted Area20 V Aberdeen Country Park21 V Hoi Ha Wan Marine Park22 V Kam Shan Country Park23 V Lam Tsuen Country Park24 V Lantau North Country Park25 V Lion Rock Country Park26 V Lung Fu Shan Country Park27 V Plover Cove (extension) Country Park28 V Pok Fu Lam Country Park29 V Sai Kung West (Wan Tsai extension) Country Park30 V Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau31 V Shing Mun Country Park32 V Tai Lam Country Park33 V Tai Mo Shan Country Park34 V Tai Tam Country Park35 V Tai Tam (Quarry Bay extension) Country Park36 V Tung Ping Chau Marine Park37 V Yan Chau Tong Marine Park38 Unknown A Chau SSSI39 Unknown Beacon Hill SSSI40 Unknown Bluff Island and Basalt Island SSSI

41

No. IUCN Category Protected Areas41 Unknown Castle Peak SSSI42 Unknown Centre Island SSSI43 Unknown Chiu Keng Tam SSSI44 Unknown Clear Water Bay Country Park45 Unknown D’Aguilar Peninsula SSSI46 Unknown Fung Yuen Valley SSSI47 Unknown Ho Chung Valley SSSI48 Unknown Hoi Ha Wan SSSI49 Unknown Hok Tsui (Cape D’Aguilar) SSSI50 Unknown Inner Deep Bay SSSI51 Unknown Kei Ling Ha Mangal SSSI52 Unknown Kiu Tsui Country Park53 Unknown Lai Chi Chong SSSI54 Unknown Lai Chi Wo Beach SSSI55 Unknown Lantau Peak SSSI56 Unknown Lantau South Country Park57 Unknown Lin Ma Hang Lead Mines SSSI58 Unknown Lung Kwu Chau, Tree Island and Sha Chau SSSI59 Unknown Ma On Shan SSSI60 Unknown Ma On Shan Country Park61 Unknown Mai Po Marshes and Inner Deep Bay

(Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance)

62 Unknown Mai Po Village SSSI

63 Unknown Man Cheung Po SSSI64 Unknown Mau Ping SSSI65 Unknown Nai Chung Coast SSSI66 Unknown Nam Fung Road Woodland SSSI67 Unknown Ng Tung Chai SSSI68 Unknown Ninepin Group SSSI69 Unknown Pak Nai SSSI70 Unknown Pak Tai To Yan SSSI71 Unknown Pat Sin Leng Country Park72 Unknown Pat Sin Range SSSI73 Unknown Ping Chau SSSI74 Unknown Plover Cove Country Park75 Unknown Pok Fu Lam Reservoir Catchment Area SSSI76 Unknown Pok To Yan and Por Kai Shan SSSI77 Unknown Port Island SSSI78 Unknown Sai Kung East Country Park79 Unknown Sai Kung West Country Park80 Unknown San Tau Beach SSSI

42

No. IUCN Category Protected Areas81 Unknown Sham Chung Coast SSSI82 Unknown She Shan feng shui Woodland SSSI83 Unknown Shek O Country Park84 Unknown Shing Mun feng shui Woodland SSSI85 Unknown Shuen Wan Egretry SSSI86 Unknown South Lamma Island SSSI87 Unknown Sunset Peak SSSI88 Unknown Tai Long Bay SSSI89 Unknown Tai Mo Shan SSSI90 Unknown Tai Mo Shan Montane Scrub Forest SSSI91 Unknown Tai Po Egretry SSSI92 Unknown Tai Tam Harbour (Inner Bay) SSSI93 Unknown Tai Tam Reservoir Catchment Area SSSI94 Unknown Ting Kok SSSI95 Unknown Tolo Channel (Northern Coast) SSSI96 Unknown Tseng Tau Coast SSSI97 Unknown Tsim Bei Tsui SSSI98 Unknown Tsim Bei Tsui Egretry SSSI99 Unknown Yim Tin Tsai and Ma Shi Chau SSSI

100 Unknown Yim Tso Ha Egretry SSSI

43

© Civic Exchange, August 2012The views expressed in this report are those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Civic Exchange.

Room 701, Hoseinee House, 69 Wyndham Street, Central, Hong KongT (852) 2893 0213 F (852) 3105 9713 www.civic-exchange.org