Geoffrey Somers notes that a High Court decision is likely to bring a further 60 enclaves into conservation land, which already covers nearly half the SAR's surface area

A decision of the High Court last month has again shone the glare of publicity on the absurd amount of Hong Kong's precious land that is set aside for country parks. The court was hearing a claim lodged by an environmentalist over whether senior officials had acted within the law in 2013 when they refused to designate six additional "enclaves" in the New Territories as country park land. Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung ordered the government to reconsider the future use of all six "enclaves" that it had refused to designate as park land. The judge ruled in favor of Chan Ka-lam, a founding member of campaign group Save Our Country Parks, finding that the Country and Marine Parks Authority (CMPA) had erred in 2013 when it decided not to recommend the inclusion of the six areas into adjoining country parks.

In particular the judge found that in forming its decision as to the apparent unsuitability of the six areas the CMPA did not specifically consider their conservation, landscape and aesthetic values, as required by the relevant guidelines.

The decision appears to ensure that the six "enclaves" - which are located in the Hoi Ha, Pak Lap, To Kwa Peng, Pak Tam Au, So Lo Pun and Tin Fu Tsai districts - will be added to our current bulging stock of land reserved for country parks.

Far more significant, however, was the disturbing revelation in evidence during the hearing that presently there are no fewer than 54 more of these "country park enclaves" located in the New Territories (NT), all of which will probably be tacked on to established country parks.

To get this extraordinary situation in proper perspective, let us now examine all the relevant facts about how much land Hong Kong actually stands upon, and how much of it is reserved for use as country parks and other special purposes. Quite amazingly, the gross area of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is a mere 1,108 square kilometers, a figure that includes 100-plus uninhabited little islands.

Where else has any territory faced the enormous handicap of possessing so little space on which to create housing and work places for its 7 million inhabitants, plus the necessary infrastructure? Despite having to face such a seemingly impossible task Hong Kong has nevertheless morphed into the busiest and most extraordinary little slice of land anywhere on the globe.

Furthermore, if you were to divide those 1,108 sq km of land by 7 million-plus to have an idea of how much is theoretically held by each of inhabitant you would discover how tiny that average amount of land is. But, absolutely minute as that figure would be, it would nevertheless still be grossly exaggerated if we took into account how Hong Kong actually uses the miserable amount of land it stands upon. You will be flabbergasted to learn that across land-starved Hong Kong, it is estimated that approaching half of those 1,108 sq km, or an estimated 433 sq km, is given over to the sanctity of no fewer than 24 country parks and 22 special areas.

This means that we 7 million-plus inhabitants actually live, work and exist upon much less land than is occupied by those country parks and special areas. On top of this we must add the land occupied by those six country park "enclaves" that have just been legally reallocated, plus the strong likelihood that the afore-mentioned 54 additional "enclaves" will soon be joining them as additional country park land!

How has it come about that several decades after the then colonial government introduced the concept of country parks we learn about such a large number of these "enclaves"? At first glance it seems these "enclaves" are probably associated with some of the problems so often involved in land disputes in the NT. Have they been pigeon-holed by officialdom or did they perhaps disappear into some department's "too hard basket"?

More to the point, why do we need 60 additional areas of land incorporated into our existing parks? What possible justification can there be for more of them in a territory that so desperately needs land for public housing and development, especially when we consider that under the current rules and regulations country park land is untouchable for other purposes? At present under the Country Parks Ordinance, the CMPA is responsible for recommending to the Chief Executive which areas of land are to be designated as country parks, where in future their vegetation and wildlife will be protected.

With a new leader about to take over the SAR's administration, surely this is the right moment to reconsider whether some of the more suitable areas of the country parks can be adapted as land for public housing estates.

At present teens and people in their 20s in Hong Kong despair of ever getting a roof over their heads in a public housing estate. Just think what a wave of delight and joy would sweep through them - and their parents - if such a lifeline were to be extended to them.

(HK Edition 05/18/2017 page8)