Hong Kong’s San Tin Technopole plan may breach China’s conservation policies, green groups claim
Hong Kong Free Press
Hong Kong’s town planning authorities should not “hastily approve” a draft zoning plan for a proposed tech hub, green groups have said, warning that the proposal may violate at least five ecological conservation guidelines in mainland China.
The San Tin Technopole, which was conditionally approved by the city’s environmental authorities last month, is seen as the centrepiece of the proposed Northern Metropolis. The large-scale project was announced in 2021 and aims to integrate the development of existing new towns in Yuen Long, Tin Shui Wai, Fanling and Sheung Shui and develop other rural areas near the border.
Ten environmental groups from Hong Kong, Guangdong and Macau submitted a joint petition letter to the Development Bureau, Town Planning Board (TPB) and Planning Department on Tuesday to call for a revision of a development plan for the city’s proposed innovation and technology hub near its border with Mainland China.
The San Tin Technopole itself would cover 627 hectares, including some 300 hectares for tech purposes and more than 50,000 homes. It is intended to support the city’s ambition to become an international innovation and technology centre.
Since its inception, the technopole development has come under fire from environmentalists, who say the project poses a significant threat to the last remaining largest and intact coastal wetland ecosystem in the Greater Bay Area.
Explainer: What is Hong Kong’s San Tin Technopole and why is the planned tech hub controversial?
They estimated that 248 hectares of wetland conservation area and buffer zones would be damaged, affecting an important habitat for more than 205 bird species, among which 19 are facing extinction, including the globally endangered black-faced spoonbill.
On Tuesday, representatives from Greenpeace HK, the Hong Kong Bird Watching Society, the Conservancy Association, CrossBorder Environment Concern Association (CECA) and Chief of Macau Ecology criticised the Hong Kong government for failing to “provide a clear justification” for the city’s actual need for a tech hub.
According to the groups, the draft plan, which will be discussed in a four-day TPB meeting starting on Friday, failed to address existing conservation requirements in Hong Kong. By changing the original land use zoning at the technopole site, the plan omitted the requirement to ensure there was “no net loss in wetland,” the groups said.
Mr Lu from CECA cited the 2022 Wetland Protection Law in Mainland China, its “ecological priority principle” and the policy of designating areas with high ecological sensibility and vulnerability as “ecological red lines.” The environmentalist from Guangzhou said the draft technopole plan would “cut up” the ecosystem in the Deep Bay and breach the requirements and guiding principles of the Wetland Protection Law, as it is situated within the Wetland Conservation Area of Deep Bay, which generally prohibits new developments due to the ecological values of fishponds.
He added the TPB established regulations for the establishment of wetland conservation areas and buffer zones in 2014 to prevent inappropriate engineering projects from compromising the integrity of the Ramsar wetland ecosystem. It would be a step backwards for Hong Kong authorities if the technopole plan proceeds without revision.
“We oppose this ‘moving the goalpost’ approach of modifying the wetland boundaries for expansion… If the TPB approves the plan, it would overturn the conservation principles set by itself a decade ago,” he said.
When asked if environmental groups would consider launching a legal bid to challenge the development plan, Wong Suet-mei, senior conservation officer of the Hong Kong Bird Watching Society said the project was still at an early stage. She would not rule out the possibility of launching a judicial review, she said.
Judicial reviews are considered by the Court of First Instance and examine the decision-making processes of administrative bodies. Issues under review must be shown to affect the wider public interest.
Support HKFP | Policies & Ethics | Error/typo? | Contact Us | Newsletter | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team
HKFP has an impartial stance, transparent funding, and balanced coverage guided by an Ethics Code and Corrections Policy.
Support press freedom & help us surpass 1,000 monthly Patrons: 100% independent, governed by an ethics code & not-for-profit.