Legal status of old trees should be defined in cultural heritage law: Committee
In the debate as to whether 10 trees located at the original Cheok Ka Village in Taipa should be retained as they are, the Cultural Affairs Bureau (IC) clarified that it does not have the power to provide a valid opinion.
A parliamentary committee invited responses from the government regarding a petition on the scrutiny of old tree protection submitted by the New Macau Association (ANM), which opposes the relocation of 10 centennial trees located within the aboriginal village in Taipa. The Land and Urban Construction Bureau (DSSCU) is pushing for the move.
During the Third Standing Committee meeting yesterday, the IC – the authority overseeing the implementation of the Cultural Heritage Protection Law – clarified that only if the trees were located in the Historic Centre of Macau, classified as real property, or concerned in urban planning within the buffer zone restricted by law, would the IC issue a valid opinion.
Since the old trees do not fall within any of the above-mentioned categories, the IC has no permission to issue an official opinion that could be taken into consideration by the Urban Planning Committee (CPU).
After the meeting, the committee president, Vong Hin Fai, said that the committee believed that the law gives various departments responsibility for urban planning, including the protection of old trees, so the IC has the right to issue opinions even though its opinion may be non-binding.
Meanwhile, the IC said it will keep in close contact with the Public Works and Transport Bureau (DSSOPT) and the Municipal Affairs Bureau (IAM), to collaboratively research on how to strengthen the protection of the old trees under discussion.
However, it clarified that these bureaus would not make the final decision.
Among the coordinating work between government departments, the DSSOPT said that they have contacted the IAM and the Cartography and Cadastre Bureau (DSCC) to visit the Taipa Cheok Ka Village to ensure the actual location of the old trees.
Meanwhile, Vong quoted the IC as saying that departments should follow these rules in cross-department activities, especially in matters of “significant public interest.”
The committee also suggested that if it aims to make amendments to Cultural Heritage Protection law, it should clarify the legal nature of the old trees, specifying which department has the authority to transplant or remove old trees based on the reason of “significant public interest” and specifically explain under which circumstances the IC may issue a valid opinion.
Back in March, attention was drawn to whether the 10 old trees should be transplanted or removed due to the extension plan of the route by the DSSPOT at a CPU monthly plenary meeting.
So far, the city has listed 616 old trees under the protection of the Cultural Heritage Protection Law.
Staff Reporter
