ANM petition to parliament on old trees awaits gov’t responses

A parliamentary committee will invite responses from the government regarding a petition on the scrutiny of old tree protection submitted by a local community group.

On April 4, New Macau Association (ANM) submitted the aforementioned petition letter to the Legislative Assembly (AL) amid the government – mainly the now Land and Urban Construction Bureau (DSSCU) – pushing for the relocation of 10 centennial trees located within an aboriginal village in Taipa.

The trees have grown in two rows, to the height of two to three floors of a residential building.

At the same time, the Municipal Affairs Bureau (IAM) has provided its opinion that relocation is less than recommended, considering the size and age of the trees.

In Macau, trees of such age can be included in the Old Tree Catalog and, if so, are under legal protection from jeopardy. When enlisted in the Catalog, trees will also be protected by the Cultural Heritage Protection Law, possessing legal ranking similar to the Ruins of St Paul’s and the A-Ma Temple.

The 10 trees are considered to be within the Catalog.

Following the DSSCU’s presentation on its relatively unyielding position in getting the trees relocated and the delayed expression on its position by the Cultural Affairs Bureau (IC) – the authority overseeing the implementation of the Cultural Heritage Protection, the ANM filed the petition to the parliament.

In the petition, the ANM called on the parliament to review the implementation of the Cultural Heritage Law, with particular focus on its protection for old trees. The group also questioned the law and the government’s position in protecting old trees, as well as the legal positions of old trees.

President Vong Hin Fai, after yesterday’s committee meeting, stated that responses will be requested from the IAM and the IC as the authorities handling old trees. After hearing their response, an opinion document will be compiled.

Vong also disclosed that the group had, prior to yesterday’s meeting, requested a meeting with the committee. Committee members unanimously decided to decline the request, citing the lack of need as they found “the petition letter clear enough to stand for itself,” according to Vong.