敬啟者：

作為香港市民，我們十分不滿特區政府的《生物多樣性策劃及行動計劃》公眾諮詢，未有處理全港生境被毀的問題。

1. 諮詢文件只誇大政府在本港保育工作的成就。

2. 諮詢文件並沒有提及制定《策劃計劃》在國際間的基礎，即《愛知目標》，更沒有提及諮詢文件提出的所謂行動計劃能如何符合《愛知目標》及預期帶來的成果。

3. 更甚者，現時政府大規模的土地及基建開發，以及規劃政策，變相是帶頭違犯《愛知目標》。以下是數個例證：

3.1 政府計劃在未來10年開發新界東北、洪水橋、錦田南、新界北、東涌等農地，及綠化地帶作住屋及其他發展，涉及全港超過20%的面積 (違反愛知目標2及7) 。

3.2 政府正/將進行多個填海工程，包括第三條號道及東大嶼人工島，合共將損失3,680 公頃的海洋生境。到2020年時，香港海岸保護的水域將只佔香港水域的3%。(違反愛知目標11)

3.3 50幅郊野公園不包括土地，當中大部份劃出不合比例地高的丁屋發展區，威脅郊野公園的完整性。(違反愛知目標5)

3.4 非法填土及濫伐樹木破壞私人土地上的自然生境，降低了低地及濕地的生物多樣性。當中這令全港只剩下2000 隻黃牛及水牛。。(違反愛知目標5)

3.6 私人土地上的不同生境，包括政府提出的12個最具自然保育價值的優先地點，也屢遭破壞。但「管理協議」或「公私營界別合作」至今只覆蓋3個地點。(違反愛知目標3)

4. 我們促請政府面對現時全港各生境遭受到威脅，正視全港市民的訴求，針對20項的《愛知目標》，跨部門制定《策略計劃》，包括發展局及食衛局，切實考慮專家小組的400多項建議。

4.1 加強執法及堵塞法例漏洞，制止私人土地上各種生境的破壞
4.2 提供經濟誘因及技術支援予地主及租戶，保育私人土地上生境，作養殖、農業等配合環境的用途
4.3 為全港各項基建及大型發展計劃制定法定的策略性環評，並改革環諮會的組成，獨立審視對環境的累積環境
4.4 規劃標準引入生態保護規定及生態友善農業面積
4.5 將「本土物種科」列作優先保育政略

香港政府不但欺騙香港市民，還以制定《生物多樣性策劃及行動計劃》掩飾其破壞本港環境的行為。這是令人難以接受。我們期望當港府向聯合國呈交《生物多樣性策劃及行動計劃》報告時，環境規劃署及生物多樣性公約秘書處會考慮以上觀點。

此致
聯合國環境規劃署
生物多樣性公約秘書處

副本抄送：環境局及漁農自然護理署
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
（英文版）
Dear UNEP/CBD Secretariat,

We are citizens of Hong Kong. Our government is currently conducting a BSAP consultation. We are disturbed by the following facts:

1. The consultation document is full of propaganda glorifying the merits of the government. However, it fails to any of the 20 Aichi Targets, and sets itself no specific goals and outcomes for the so-called "action plan"

2. Worst of all, the government is Hong Kong’s largest developer and is implementing a number of policies which directly violate CBD targets. Its land supply strategy, infrastructure development and planning policies will result in accelerated loses of biodiversity, instead of halving the loss.

3.1 The Hong Kong Government is pursuing the destruction of farmland and greenbelts, which make up some 20% of the Hong Kong territory, by re-zoning them for residential and other development.  (Violation of  Aichi Target 2 and 7)

3.2 Large scale reclamation projects are pursued including for a Third Runway and a new island to house the ‘East Lantau Metropolis’. 3680 ha of marine habitat will be lost. Not more than 3% of marine areas will be protected by 2020, if it all.(Violation of  Aichi Target 11)

3.3 Large areas are reserved for small house development on 50 enclaves of land deep inside protected country parks, destroying the integrity of these country parks.. (Violation of  Aichi Target 5)

3.4 Natural habitats on private land are lost due to active illegal landfilling and tree felling reducing low land and wetland biodiversity. This also impacts the less than 2000 cows and under 120 water buffalos, feral bovid species. (Violation of  Aichi Target 5)

3.5 Habitats on land under private ownership under the threat of destruction by vegetation clearance, landfilling and unauthorized developments include 12 priority sites for long identified for conservation.(Violation of Aichi Target 3)

4. We urge the government to commit to a progressive Action Plan and to organize inter-bureau collaboration to implement the over 400 specific actions, 33 key actions and 11 principles proposed by the focus groups and working groups established under the BSAP Steering Committee.

4.1 We urge Government to initiate changing existing policies and legislation to stop habitats including farmland and fishpond on private land from being destroyed by plugging legal loopholes and stepping up enforcement.

4.2 We urge Government to provide financial incentives and technical support to landowners / tenants to conserve habitat under private ownership.

4.3 We call for statutory Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) to provide an environmental baseline and reform the composition of the Advisory Council on the Environment to independently assess the cumulative impacts of development options.

4.4 We call for new specific provisions for conservation and environmentally friendly agriculture in the planning guidelines.

4.5 We call for the active development of conservation practices and the prioritize of conservation for ‘Local Species’.

We deeply concerned that the Hong Kong Government is not only deceiving the Hong Kong public, but also the international community as it seeks to greenwash its maladministration of Hong Kong’s land and waters. Its lack of commitment to developing a pro-active BSAP which contributes to the Aichi is unacceptable. We urge the UNEP/CBD Secretariat to consider the above when it evaluates the progress reports from the Nations, and advise us of its findings.

Yours sincerely,

CC. Environment Bureau and Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department