1

Seventh Meeting of the Terrestrial Biodiversity Working Group

Confirmed Minutes of Meeting

Date : 14 August 2014 (Thursday)

Time : 9:35 a.m. – 12:45 p.m.

Venue : Room 701, Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, 7/F,

Cheung Sha Wan Government Offices, 303 Cheung Sha Wan Road,

Kowloon

ATTENDANCE

Convenor

Prof. JIM Chi-yung, J.P.

Members

Dr. Gary ADES

Mr. Ruy BARRETTO

Mr. CHENG Sing-hymn, Simeon

Dr. Roger KENDRICK

Dr. LAU Wai-neng, Michael

Mr. LEUNG Ho-yin, Henry

Mr. LI Yiu-ban, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.

Mr. TAM Po-yiu

Mr. TSANG Kam-lam, B.B.S., J.P.

Mr. James YOUNG

Dr. SO Ping-man

Mr. CHAN Kin-fung, Simon

Assistant Director (Conservation),

Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation

Department (AFCD)

Senior Conservation Officer

(Biodiversity), AFCD

Dr. YIP Yin, Jackie Senior Conservation Officer (Technical

2

Services), AFCD

Mr. SHEK Chung-tong Senior Wetland and Fauna

Conservation Officer (Acting), AFCD

Mr. NG Kwok-yan, Franco Senior Country Parks Officer (South

East), AFCD

Secretary

Ms. CHAN Sin-wai, Aidia Conservation Officer (Biodiversity)1,

AFCD

IN ATTENDANCE

Dr. PAU Ka-wai Senior Agricultural Development

Officer, AFCD

Dr. NG Sai-chit Conservation Officer (Biodiversity)4,

AFCD

Miss SO Wai-yan, Ivy Conservation Officer (Biodiversity)2,

AFCD

Miss TSUI Wing-chi, Wing Conservation Officer (Special Duties)1,

AFCD

Miss LI Man-yan, Sian Senior Administrative Officer (Nature

Conservation), Environmental

Protection Department

In Attendance – for Agenda Items I-IV only

Mr. JOR Chi-keung, George Member, Awareness, Mainstreaming

and Sustainability Working Group

Ms. LAU Yuen-yee, Vicky Member, Awareness, Mainstreaming

and Sustainability Working Group

Ms. WONG Lai-yin, Idy Member, Awareness, Mainstreaming

3

and Sustainability Working Group

ABSENT WITH APOLOGIES

Prof. David DUDGEON

Dr. HAU Chi-hang, Billy

Mr. NG Anthony Vincent Wing-shun, J.P.

Dr. NG Cho-nam, S.B.S., J.P.

Mr. SO Ngai-hung, Samson

Ms. YAU Mee-ling

Mr. Paul ZIMMERMAN

Action

AGENDA ITEMS

The Convenor welcomed Dr. SO Ping-man to his first Terrestrial

Biodiversity Working Group (TBWG) meeting as the new Assistant Director

(Conservation) of the AFCD. He also welcomed Mr. George JOR, Ms. Vicky LAU

and Ms. Idy WONG of the Awareness, Mainstreaming and Sustainability Working

Group for joining the discussion on ‘sustainable agriculture’ under agenda item

IV.

I. Confirmation of Minutes of the Sixth Meeting

2. The Convenor informed Members that the draft minutes of the sixth

TBWG meeting had been circulated to Members for comments but no

comments had been received. As there were no further comments proposed by

Members, the draft minutes were confirmed.

(Post-meeting note: the confirmed minutes of the sixth meeting were sent to

Members for record on 20 August 2014)

II. Overview of the Progress of the Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan

(BSAP)

4

Action

3. Ms. Aidia CHAN updated Members on the overall progress of the

BSAP.

4. The Convenor reminded Members that the first BSAP was only for

implementation in 2015-2020, and it would be important to prioritise the

proposed actions. He reminded focus groups to submit their final report to the

Secretariat by early September. Two Working Group meetings would be held in

September. The first meeting would be to go through all the final reports, and

the second meeting would focus on the prioritisation of proposed actions for

submitting to the Steering Committee. Members were reminded to align their

progress with the working timeline.

5. Dr. Gary ADES enquired whether comments would be sought from

Members or other parties on the finalised order of priorities, and whether

changes would be allowed later given that the environment and biodiversity

would change with time. Mr. Simon CHAN explained that the recommendations

submitted would be prioritised according to the prioritisation matrix, and

Members would be invited to provide comments on the prioritised actions

before submitting to the Steering Committee. The endorsed actions would be

implemented accordingly. Having said that, the BSAP was an adaptive process

that allowed ongoing monitoring and review.

6. Mr. Ruy BARRETTO requested for the powerpoint file. He informed

Members that the draft vision and mission of the BSAP were discussed briefly by

the Steering Committee and comments were exchanged via emails afterwards.

He also had concerns on the prioritisation matrix which, in his opinion, needed

to be improved. Mr. Simon CHAN pointed out that the vision and mission as well

as the prioritisation matrix should be deliberated by the Steering Committee,

whereas the Working Group would focus on items as listed on the agenda.

The

Secretariat

(Post-meeting note: powerpoint file of the presentation was uploaded to the File

5

Action

Sharing Website on 14 August 2014 for Members’ information)

III. Matters Arising

7. Ms. Aidia CHAN reported that the Secretariat had followed up on the

progress of the Terrestrial Habitat Focus Group and arranged four topical

meetings. Further details on the Focus Group’s progress update would be

reported under agenda item VII.

IV. Deliberation on ‘Sustainable Agriculture’

8. Mr. Simon CHAN presented the background information on

sustainable agriculture in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity;

and Dr. PAU Ka-wai presented the information note on the ‘Development of

Sustainable Agriculture in Hong Kong’ (TBWG Information Note 9).

9. Dr. Roger KENDRICK raised his concerns on the possible impacts of

current farming practices on local biodiversity and resources. He pointed out

that hydroponics (one of farming methods introduced in the paper) was very

resource-intensive. He asked what kind of investigations and research had been

done to minimise the impact upon resource use and the local environment for

these approaches. Dr. PAU Ka-wai said that among different farming methods,

hydroponics was not widely adopted despite its rising popularity in recent years.

For the widely practiced soil farming, the application of organic farming and

good agricultural practice could help minimise the environmental

consequences. He also noted that it was up to the farmers to select their own

farming method(s).

10. Mr. TAM Po-yiu said that agriculture could be looked at from a

business point of view because of the provisioning services of farm products,

and from an ecological point of view from the way it could contribute to species

diversity. He was however concerned that the 10% commission charged by the

Vegetable Marketing Organisation (VMO) on the total sales might cause some

6

Action

wholesalers/operators to go around the system and find ways to compete with

lower prices. Dr. PAU Ka-wai explained that the government wholesale food

markets were set up to facilitate the collection and distribution of goods

between buyers and sellers, and market stalls would be rented out. He clarified

that the above-mentioned 10% commission charged by VMO was indeed the

maximum percentage. The actual percentage of the commission that would be

charged was based on the kind of services provided. Mr. TAM Po-yiu added that

under the existing development pressure, a no-win situation could be resulted

if no incentives were provided to farmers to carry on their farming practices.

11. Dr. Michael LAU enquired if recommendations would need to be

drawn for priorities deliberated by the Working Group. The Convenor said that

since those priorities were not covered by any focus group, recommendations

should be made by the Working Group and submitted to the Steering

Committee for consideration.

12. Mr. LI Yiu-ban explained the reasons of the abandonment of

farmlands by pointing out that, many farmlands in close proximity to roads had

been converted into more profitable uses such as container vehicle parks; while

remote farmlands were too inaccessible for delivering farm produce to the

markets. The ownership of agricultural lands were usually scattered, making it

difficult for tenant farmers who wished to rent agricultural land to liaise with

land owners. He suggested the Government could act as a middleman and rent

off the scattered farmlands from individual landlords, who usually resided

overseas, and sublease the land to tenant farmers. He hoped that the

agricultural policy could help reduce farmland abandonment and improve

biodiversity in agricultural land, which would in turn benefit the whole

agricultural development in Hong Kong. Mr. Ruy BARRETTO echoed by quoting

the example of the agricultural land rehabilitation currently taking place at the

Lai Chi Wo Village. Ms. Vicky LAU concurred with the idea on subleasing the

rented land to tenant farmers, and suggested that the middleman could be the

Government, a non-government organisation (NGO) or other agencies, like the

7

Action

VMO and the Federation of Vegetable Marketing Cooperative Societies, Ltd.

13. Mr. Ruy BARRETTO asked if copy of the presentation could be

provided. He expressed what was lacking in the agricultural policy was the

provision of land. He opined that the availability of land and resources were

important in promoting sustainable agriculture. Dr. PAU Ka-wai agreed with the

fact that land was crucial for sustainable agriculture, that being said, the

Government would not offer direct financial subsidy to a particular industry

under Hong Kong’s free-market principle. The Convenor suggested that

government subsidies to farming could aim at helping the conservation cause

rather than just monetary assistance.

(Post-meeting note: powerpoint file of the presentations were uploaded to the

File Sharing Website on 14 August 2014 for Members’ information)

The

Secretariat

14. In light of the emerging global food crisis, Mr. TSANG Kam-lam

expressed that the ultimate goal of sustainable agriculture was the

maximisation of food production using existing resources. An example was to

conduct active research on urban farming. He gave credits to AFCD’s work on

sustainable agriculture in terms of promoting economic and social benefits, but

thought that little work was known to have done on agriculture with respect to

promoting environmental protection, especially in biodiversity enhancement.

He suggested to put more emphasis on further promoting agricultural practices

that were favourable to the local biodiversity, such as wet paddy farming, as a

proposed action. Dr. PAU Ka-wai pointed out that Hong Kong’s farming

underwent sectoral change in its operation model, from agricultural production

to service industry such as leisure farming; and transformation in its production

model, from traditional farming to high-tech greenhouse farming with

introduction of new and improved plant varieties. Such efforts could certainly

enhance sustainability and biodiversity.

15. Ms. Idy WONG pointed out that the soil element, together with the

8

Action

associated microorganisms, should be added to the definition of sustainable

agriculture (as presented in the background information). She expressed her

concern that, under the free-market principle, the selling price of farm produce

had barely risen in the past decade, making it hard for farmers to sustain their

livelihood, and ultimately contributing to the loss of farmlands. She also

commented that the current agricultural policy was not able to provide

sufficient guidance on issues like preserving local farming, and more

importantly, a proper land policy was lacking. In response to the Convenor’s

query on the number of people who wished to engage in farming, she clarified

that over 80 farmers were able to find land through the AFCD Agriculture Land

Rehabilitation Scheme in the past four years, yet over 200 farmers were still on

the waiting list. Besides, other than food and economic benefits, sustainable

agriculture should encompass broader aspects and elements, such as its

contribution to habitat management, farmers’ livelihood, sustainable

consumption, ecological footprints and climate change. ‘Appropriate

technology’ could then be identified after assessing each farming practice

against these elements, in which hydroponics would not be an outstanding

farming technique in terms of its high ecological footprints and crop retail prices.

The Convenor concurred that soil was an important factor in agriculture, and

areas with high-quality soil should be spared from development.

16. Dr. Michael LAU agreed that sustainable agriculture had a close

relationship with biodiversity, and it had been discussed in the Terrestrial

Habitat Focus Group that preserved farmlands could act as wildlife corridors

linking otherwise disparate protected areas. Therefore when considering the

idea of having the Government to rent out farmlands from landlords for

subleasing, locations should be selected strategically to permit the farms to

serve as wildlife corridors. Agricultural land like the paddy fields and/or organic

farming might attract or enable the re-introduction of some locally extinct

species, such as the Rough-skinned Floating Frog (Occidozyga lima), and some

damselfly species. Ms. Vicky LAU added that the concept of ‘agricultural priority

areas’ could be reconsidered to identify areas where farming would be suitable

9

Action

and should have taken the priority.

17. Ms. Vicky LAU stated that the data presented were clear and

informative, and suggested that the Government to publish agricultural data

regularly in such well-organised format. She suggested more researches to be

done on new farming methods such as aquaponics, which is a more sustainable

farming technique developed from hydroponics, and indoor urban farming using

renewable energy. She opined that local production of choy sum should be

encouraged to reduce our dependence on imports from Ningxia which carries a

relatively heavy carbon footprint; and research on water-saving agriculture such

as drip irrigation, dry farming and enhanced water management in paddy

farming, should be considered to meet the future rise in water demand with

agricultural land rehabilitation. Mr. LI Yiu-ban concurred with the importance of

water resources in agriculture and proposed the use of modern technology to

conserve water in paddy farming through reuse and recycling.

18. Dr. Michael LAU enquired if a paper on aquaculture, which was also

covered under ABT 7, would be prepared to facilitate the Working Group to

make recommendations. Mr. Simon CHAN replied that the subject had been

covered by an information note as prepared by the Marine Biodiversity Working

Group (MBWG Paper 03/2013), and had been uploaded to the BSAP webpage.

19. In response to the introduction of new or improved crop varieties

from overseas as mentioned in the presentation, Dr. Gary ADES wondered if any

protection on the local varieties or rare strains would be encouraged, such as

through accreditation. Although farmers had free choice of farming methods,

the Government could provide some level of control over the sustainability of

the farming practice by giving accreditation to farms, based on their use of

resources.

20. Mr. Ruy BARRETTO proposed setting up an informal committee with

some Members and the AFCD representatives to look into the farming and

10

Action

biodiversity aspects of sustainable agriculture and work out some action plans.

Mr. Simon CHAN reminded Members of the tight working timeline, and

suggested the Secretariat to organise the recommendations discussed on this

meeting and circulate these to Members for review.

The

Secretariat

(Post-meeting note: the draft proposed actions on sustainable agriculture were

circulated to Members for comment on 26 August 2014)

21. In view of the good number of people who would like to be engaged

in farming, Ms. Vicky LAU wondered if the Government or the academics could

give assistance to either individual farmers or NGOs to rehabilitate agricultural

land in a sustainable manner. Areas deemed undesirable for farming due to their

high ecological value should be identified and announced. If the area is not

allowed for farming finally, compensation should be considered. Forest farming

or agroforestry was also proposed to preserve valuable trees from being cleared,

and to increase farmers’ income through combining with agritourism e.g. shade

grown coffee. Besides supporting organic certification, she suggested the

Government assist new farmers through their transition to organic farming by

providing financial support, and increasing the number of farmers markets to

enhance the farm income. When talking in the context of sustainable agriculture,

animal welfare should also be taken into consideration, for instance, improving

the condition of poultry farming to reduce the use of antibiotics. Support in

public education, resources and brand-building would be necessary for

promoting the sales of these welfare products, in light of their higher production

cost and hence higher selling price.

22. Ms. Idy WONG proposed exploring the feasibility of practising various

biodiversity-enhancing farming techniques in Hong Kong, such as the

abovementioned agroforestry and aquaponics, the use of biochar in soil,

permaculture and urban farming. The Convenor supported the idea and

potential of urban farming in Hong Kong, given the high availability of barren

rooftops and podiums. Mr. TSANG Kam-lam added that urban farming should

11

Action

not be limited to rooftops but also indoor, which should however aim at

practices that demand lower energy input.

(Mr. George JOR, Ms. Vicky LAU, Mr. PAU Ka-wai and Ms. Idy WONG left the

meeting at this point.)

V. Final Report of the Terrestrial Impact Assessment Focus Group

23. Mr. Henry LEUNG, one of the co-leaders of the Terrestrial Impact

Assessment Focus Group, presented the draft final report. He explained that the

draft final report was still being edited to incorporate the comments received,

and hence not available at the time of the meeting. He reported that around 100

returns with good representation of stakeholder groups had been received.

Three most significant threats were identified, namely habitat loss caused by (1)

residential and (2) infrastructural development, and (3) habitat/ecosystem

modification/fragmentation through direct human activities. Proposed actions

were drawn based on the recommendations arisen from the questionnaire

results.

24. The Convenor thanked Mr. Henry LEUNG and Focus Group members

for their hard work. In order to facilitate the compilation of all key

recommendations, he reminded the Focus Group to examine the relevance of

the recommendations with the ABTs, justify the proposed actions of which

whether alterative paths leading to the same goal had been considered, and

whether any specific actions proposed could be grouped together as a collective

recommendation, before submitting their report to the Steering Committee.

25. Mr. Ruy BARRETTO said it would be helpful if the Focus Group could

identify relevant laws, documents and guidelines that needed tightening up, to

enable the Legislation Focus Group to work on improving the respective

regulatory framework. Mr. Henry LEUNG explained that the PowerPoint

presentation was a brief summary of the report, which had enlisted relevant

12

Action

laws and guidelines, and highlighted those deemed to have adverse impact on

our biodiversity in the recommendation. The draft report would later be sent to

Members.

26. Mr. TSANG Kam-lam suggested the Focus Group to be more specific

on the proposed actions that involved changes, such as stating which aspects of

EIA to be enhanced. He queried on whether the continuation of existing actions

should be included as a proposed action. Dr. Jackie YIP explained that it was

important to identify and continue current activities that would contribute

significantly to the objectives being considered. As such, the working groups

could include the continuation of current good practices to facilitate the

deployment of resources under the BSAP. She agreed that if the enhancement

of EIA was to be proposed, the aspects that needed to be reviewed should be

specified.

27. The Convenor advised the Secretariat to follow up with the Focus

Group after the meeting, and it was expected that the final report would be

finalised within one week of the meeting. Mr. Henry LEUNG responded that the

Focus Group would try their best to accomplish the task by the deadline.

The

Secretariat

and

Terrestrial

Impact

Assessment

Focus Group

VI. Progress Update of the Status and Trend and Red List Focus Group

28. Dr. Michael LAU, one of the co-leaders of the Status and Trend and

Red List Focus Group, briefly updated Members on the progress of the Focus

Group. He reported that there had been discussions on data sharing and access,

and the handling of sensitive information, whose disclosure may threaten the

survival of certain species. It had been agreed that in principle such sensitive

information should not be disclosed, however that would have to be judged on

a case-to-case basis and details were yet to be discussed. Progress had been

13

Action

made regarding data sharing that a list of reports/studies carried out by the

AFCD, and their electronic copies (if available and non-sensitive) had been

shared with Members. To facilitate monitoring work, a centralised biodiversity

database was proposed. Nonetheless there would be a need to take into

consideration issues such as work intensity, manpower, data ownership and

copyrights, which were subject to further deliberations. Regarding the red list

assessments, trial assessments on all Hong Kong birds and amphibians were

close to completion; while for other taxa groups only selected species would be

assessed due to existing knowledge gaps as well as time and resource limitations.

It was hoped that assessments of other species, if feasible, could gradually be

done within the five years of the BSAP implementation. Supporting institutional

set up, together with its scope and role, and the resources required would be

examined by the Focus Group with respective recommendations to be drawn. It

was also aimed that the taxonomic sub-groups would submit their

recommendations by the end of August.

29. The Convenor thanked Dr. Michael LAU for the progress update and

asked if the final report could be submitted by 1 September. Dr. Michael LAU

replied that the final report could be submitted on time. The Convenor reminded

Members that the proposed action plan would be for the BSAP implementation

in 2015-2020, and it would be important to prioritise the actions, given that

implementing all actions within five years would not be possible. Dr. Michael LAU

supplemented that the proposed actions and their priorities would vary

between and amongst taxa groups, depending on factors such as the abundance

and distribution, current knowledge, and local and global conservation status of

the species.

Status and

Trend and

Red List

Focus Group

VII. Progress Update of the Terrestrial Habitat Focus Group

30. Mr. Ruy BARRETTO reported the progress of the Terrestrial Habitat

Focus Group on behalf of the Focus Group leader, Mr. Paul ZIMMERMAN, who

was not able to join the meeting. He said that following the last focus group

14

Action

meeting dated 8 August 2014, the second draft of the final report was circulated

to Members. The completion of the actual final report would be subject to the

involvement of relevant government departments in the discussions. He

welcomed comments from Members on the second draft.

VIII. Deliberation on ‘Species Action Plan’

31. Miss Ivy SO presented the information note ‘Species Action Plan and

Other Species Conservation Measures’ (TBWG Information Note 10).

32. Dr. Roger KENDRICK said that it would be helpful to compare the

number of species action plans (SAPs) that had been produced by the

Government with the number of species that were deemed to require an SAP,

so as to understand the amount of effort that had been put into action planning

for species. He enquired if the Government had used a proforma for species

action planning, covering elements such as resources and conservation

measures required, the ecology of the concerned species, etc. Dr. Gary ADES

enquired about the criteria for deciding which animals would require an SAP, and

whether the format of the SAP documented for the Romer’s Tree Frog (Liuixalus

romeri) would be adopted for other SAPs. It was expected that SAPs should be

comprehensive and include information on the existing conservation measures,

and should be published on the website for public access.

33. Dr. Michael LAU commented that the SAP for the Chinese White

Dolphin was not effective under the circumstances that no specific conservation

objectives and targets were set. He therefore pointed out that all SAPs should

have specific conservation objectives and targets, and should be reviewed

constantly. In addition, he recommended making reference to the IUCN

Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations when

carrying out ex situ conservation. Besides constant monitoring, it would also be

important to publish the results to better inform future practices.

15

Action

34. Mr. Ruy BARRETTO said that it would be important to address the

threats and drivers of loss, trends, and solutions and actions. It would therefore

be helpful if the information note could be revised by specifically setting out the

threats, trends and the suggested action plans, for the ease of prioritisation.

35. Mr. TSANG Kam-lam enquired about the mechanism and policies

underlying the formulation of the SAPs. Mr. Simon CHAN explained that the

purpose of the information note was to better inform Members of the

components of an SAP and illustrate some existing examples, which varied in

format and content. Input from the Status and Trend and Red List Focus Group

would be important for identifying priority species to be included under the

SAPs. Any suggestions on improving and enhancing the current and future SAPs

could be put forward as recommendations, such as standardisation in format

and content, and inclusion of information on how to formulate, assess and

monitor the actions.

(Mr. Simeon CHENG left the meeting at this point.)

IX. Deliberation on ‘Genetic Diversity’

36. Dr. NG Sai-chit presented the information note ‘Conservation of

Genetic Diversity’ (TBWG Information Note 11).

37. Mr. TSANG Kam-lam asked if the AFCD had any criteria on selecting

species for genetic studies. Mr. Simon CHAN replied that the AFCD had recently

conducted genetic studies for primarily research purpose, for instance, to study

the genetic variation within a population of species of conservation concern to

facilitate their conservation. There was no established a set of criteria, and he

welcomed Members’ input on this. Dr. Michael LAU suggested the AFCD

summarise the results of their genetic projects to facilitate making

recommendations on future studies. He said that in Hong Kong, genetic

variations usually occurred in species with low mobility e.g. the Romer’s Tree

16

Action

Frog, for which variations were found between four isolated subgroups, and

such information would be important especially for ex situ conservation. Dr.

Gary ADES echoed by quoting the ex situ conservation project of the Golden

Coin Turtle (Cuora trifasciata) as a good example. He suggested the AFCD use

DNA information to study the relatedness of the turtles in Hong Kong. Mr. Simon

CHAN said that in most cases, genetic studies would be carried out by academic

institutions, and further academic studies on this aspect could provide very

useful references for the Government to enhance conservation actions.

38. Mr. Ruy BARRETTO said that genetic identification was not only

important for science but law enforcement and protection.

(Mr. Henry LEUNG left the meeting at this point.)

X. Any Other Business

39. Dr. SO Ping-man greeted Members and shared his aspirations of the

BSAP. While he could see Members’ enthusiasm toward the BSAP, he reminded

Members to be pragmatic and work towards achievable goals. To facilitate work,

he suggested that the proposed action plans should be classified into short-term

and long-term plans.

40. Dr. Michael LAU said that recommendations on the ‘Wildlife Trade’

had not been deliberated by the Working Group, and wondered how that would

be followed up. Mr. Simon CHAN said that supplementary information was sent

to Members in response to comments received. He explained that given the

existing information gaps, Members might consider recommending further

studies on this priority under the BSAP in order to acquire a more complete

picture. Dr. Michael LAU asked if the AFCD could capture the recommendations

on different priorities raised in the Working Group, and send out to Members for

the ease of commenting. The Convenor reminded Members that meetings on

discussing the recommendations and prioritising proposed actions were to be

17

Action

held in early and late September respectively. Mr. Simon CHAN supplemented

that the Secretariat would try to summarise the recommendations made by the

Working Group on the priorities for Members’ viewing. Focus groups were also

expected to submit their final reports by the next meeting and it would be

helpful if their recommendations could be clearly listed to facilitate discussions.

The Secretariat was aiming to prioritise the recommendations and send out the

list of priorities prior to the ninth meeting scheduled in late September. The

Convenor reiterated that the absolute deadline for the final report submission

was 1 September 2014.

The

Secretariat

All focus

groups

41. Mr. TSANG Kam-lam requested for the PowerPoint files presented in

the meeting and inquired if he could get access to the presentation materials of

other working groups. Mr. Simon CHAN said that the File Sharing Website was

created for information sharing amongst Members, with materials such as

information notes and PowerPoint presentations being uploaded. Login name

and password to the File Sharing Website would be sent to Members again.

(Post-meeting note: The login name and password to the File Sharing Website

were sent to Members by email on 20 August 2014)

The

Secretariat

XI. Date of Next Meeting

42. The next meeting was tentatively scheduled in early September 2014.

Members would be informed of the exact date in due course.

The

Secretariat

(Post-meeting note: The date of the eighth TBWG meeting was confirmed to be

3 September at 3:00 p.m. via email to Members on 20 August 2014)

43. There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:45

p.m.

The Secretariat

18

Action

Terrestrial Biodiversity Working Group

August 2014