 |
|
 |
|
Technical Memorandum
Annex 8
ANNEX 8 : CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING ECOLOGICAL IMPACT
Ecological impact refers to the effect on a habitat or species due
to direct or indirect changes in the environment brought about by a
project. Besides magnitude and scale, the significance of an ecological
impact is also related to the asserted importance of the habitat or
species to be affected. In general, the impact on an important habitat
or species will be more significant in comparison to other less important
ones.
2. The following are some general criteria that can be used for evaluation
of the significance of an ecological impact and the ecological importance
of a site/habitat or a species. These criteria are not exhaustive and
may carry different weight in different cases.
Table (1) Evaluating the significance of an ecological impact
| Criteria |
Remarks |
| Habitat quality |
The impact will be more
significant if ecologically important habitats are affected. The criteria
used for evaluating the ecological importance of a site / habitat
are shown in Table (2). Examples of habitat types that are considered
as important in the territory are listed in Note below. |
| Species |
The impact will be more
significant if ecologically important species are affected. The criteria
used for evaluating the ecological importance of a species are shown
in Table (3). |
| Size/Abundance |
The impact will be greater
if larger area of a habitat or greater numbers of organisms are affected.
(e.g. The impact of indiscriminate clearance of woodland is more severe
than that of selective felling of trees at the same site.) |
| Duration |
Long term impacts are
usually more significant than short term ones. |
| Reversibility |
Permanent and irreversible
impacts are usually more significant than temporary and reversible
ones. |
| Magnitude |
Usually the greater the
magnitude of the environmental changes (e.g. increase in pollution
loads, decrease in food supply), the more significant is the impact.
|
Note : Important habitat types in the territory
- mature native woodland larger than one hectare
- undisturbed natural coastal area larger than one hectare or longer
than 500 metres in linear measurement
- intertidal mudflats larger than one hectare
- established mangrove stands of any size
- brackish or freshwater marshes larger than one hectare
- established seagrass bed of any size
- natural stream courses and rivers longer than 500 metres
- established coral communities of any size
- other habitats found to have special conservation importance by documented
scientific studies
Table (2) Evaluating a site / habitat
| Criteria |
Remarks |
| Naturalness |
Truly natural habitats
(i.e. not modified by man) are usually highly valued. However, most
areas of the territory have been modified. Generally, those habitats
less modified will tend to be rated higher. |
| Size |
In general larger area
of habitat(s) shall be more valuable than smaller ones, all else being
equal. |
| Diversity |
The more diverse the species
assemblages and communities of a site, the higher is its conservation
value. |
| Rarity |
Rarity can apply to habitats
as well as species. The presence of one or more rare habitats and
species will give a site higher value than those without rarity. |
| Re-creatability |
Habitats which are difficult
to be re-created naturally or artificially are usually valued higher.
|
| Fragmentation |
In general, the more fragmented
habitat, the lower is its value. |
| Ecological linkage |
The value of a habitat
increases if it lies in close proximity and/or links functionally
to a highly valued habitat of any type. |
| Potential value |
Certain sites, through
appropriate management or natural processes, may eventually develop
a nature conservation interest substantially greater than that existing
at present. Factors limiting such potential being achieved shall be
noted. |
| Nursery/breeding ground |
Such areas are very important
for the regeneration and long term survival of many organisms and
their populations |
| Age |
Ancient natural or semi-natural
habitats are normally highly valued. For some habitats such as woodlands,
older ones are normally valued much higher than recent ones. |
| Abundance/Richness of
wildlife |
In general sites supporting
more wildlife will be rated higher. |
Table (3) Evaluating species found within a site / habitat
| Criteria |
Remarks |
| Protection status |
Species listed under local
legislation and international conventions for conservation of wildlife
shall be given special attention. References shall also be made to
those protected by law in China, especially Guangdong Province. |
| Distribution |
Species with restricted
distribution (locally or regionally) will be rated higher than those
more widespread ones. More weight shall be given to species which
are endemic to Hong Kong or South China. |
| Rarity |
Normally the rarer the
species, the more value it has. However care shall be taken in assessing
exotic weeds, escaped cultivars or captive species, vagrants and introduced
species which have lower value.
Greater weight shall be given to those which are internationally
rare, then to regionally rare (within South China) and finally locally
(within Hong Kong) rare species. Reference could be made to Red
Data Books and species lists of international conventions for conservation
of wildlife.
|

|
|