• 有害醫療廢料再現香港 市民健康繼續受嚴重威脅 Dangerous and harmful medical waste found on HK’s beaches continues to put people at risk
  • New dangerous medical waste found at HK’s beaches puts residents at risk 新危險醫料廢料襲港,對市民構成嚴重威脅
  • Joint statement regarding dumping and land filling by concern groups and environmental NGOs 關注團體及環保組織就傾倒泥頭和填土問題的聯署信
  • 【鄉議局破壞郊野公園 土地已售予發展商】上週末,鄉議局破壞了西貢郊野公園的不包括土地內的濕地,藉此抗議政府將該該處和鄰近土地劃為保育用地……我們的調查發現,慘遭破壞和斬樹的土地大部份已在2012年賣予數個發展商。原居民早已放棄了他們土地的業權,何談復耕? 【Country Parks under attack from the Heung Yee Kuk】Last Sunday, the Heung Yee Kuk felled trees and removed vegetation on wetland deep inside the Sai Kung Country Park....Our investigation has now revealed that the land in question was sold to developers in 2012. The indigenous villagers long gave up their interest in farming.
  • Queen’s Pier to City Hall?? or Pier 9 and 10?? 大會堂重置皇后碼頭?還是選址在9號10號碼頭?
  • Online Survey: Electronic Road Pricing 意見調查:電子道路收費
  • 'Missing Seats' is lobbying government for more and better seats along streets, at bus stops, and in public space.Together we can make Hong Kong a better place for all. 「邊度無凳坐」希望令大家明白安全又舒適既座位對香港人既重要性,俾自己一個參與設計香港既機會,話俾我地知邊到應該有凳坐!
  • and bad pedestrian links in Hong Kong. We will ask the Transport and Housing Bureau to fix these over time. 「邊度冇路行」的目標是希望各位能提供缺乏或有問題行人路的位置,我們會要求運輸及房屋局改善清單中的行人路。
  • The Small House Policy has a complex history, officially beginning in 1972. But the complexities began when the New Territories were added in 1898. 自1898年英國租借新界,土地問題就從未停止。直到1972年「小型屋宇政策」(俗稱丁屋)令問題更加複雜。
29 June

有害醫療廢料再現香港 市民健康繼續受嚴重威脅 Dangerous and harmful medical waste found on HK’s beaches continues to put people at risk

P6292695

有害醫療廢料再現香港 市民健康繼續受嚴重威脅

有害的醫療廢料繼續污染香港的水質和海灘,並對香港市民的健康安全造成巨大威脅。

今天創建香港行政總裁司馬文先生,居民Moran Zukerman,無塑海洋行政總裁Tracey Read及梁嘉麗小姐於政府總部外再次展示在大嶼山海灘收集的大量醫療及化學廢料,並呈交環境保護署進行調查。

這是第三次,亦是三次內最多醫療廢料數量供環境保護署進行調查。在信中,他們強烈要求環境保護署正視問題,並盡快作出相關調查及採取行動。在去年七月十二日及十二月六日,志願者已先後拾獲並向政府轉交大批醫療及化學廢料,可惜環境保護署仍未就我們提交的廢料樣本發表任何調查結果。

有關漂浮在香港的沙灘上針筒和連針針筒事宜,我們已於2008年開始向環境保護署表示關注。居民Moran Zukerman亦於去年開始在大嶼山小型的海灘收集具危險性的醫療廢料。在這十二個月內是第三次收集,當中包括529枝針筒,402枝沒有連針,127枝連針。另外,還發現藥筒,藥瓶和藥袋,有些物品甚至有被魚咬過的痕跡。居民Moran表示:「政府有聘請承包商清理海灘,但我卻發現越來越多的醫療廢料。我並不是要清理海灘,而是希望調查其來源並訂立預防措施,防止醫療廢料在我們的海洋漂浮。」

無塑海洋行政總裁Tracey Read表示:「有些藥物好像是來自中國內地,其他明顯是來自香港。香港特區政府需要與廣東進行跨部門合作,調查醫療廢料的來源和其性質,並建立處理於中國內地和香港非法棄置的危險醫療的廢料,阻止廢料流入環境是極為重要的。」

要制止不當棄置本地藥物及使用過的針筒,政府需制定和促進一個回收藥物的計劃及建立便利的棄置使用過針筒設施。政府可與公營及私營的醫療機構合作,提供回收箱分類收集使用過的針筒和不需要的藥物。

P6292604
7個月內所收集的醫療廢料
Collected medical waste within 7 months

P6292702
向環境保護署代表遞交請願信
Letter submission to Environmental Protection Department (EPD)

如需要詳盡資訊,可參考:
2016年7月12日的新聞稿:https://goo.gl/42p5DX
2016年12月6日的新聞稿:https://goo.gl/3kGZSB

Dangerous and harmful medical waste found on HK’s beaches continues to put people at risk

Hazardous medical waste continues to pollute Hong Kong’s water and beaches. The waste poses a huge risk to the health and safety of tourists and Hong Kong people.

Today, Designing Hong Kong’s CEO Paul Zimmerman, Moran Zukerman, a local resident, and Plastic Free Seas’ CEO Tracey Read and Julia Leung again submitted a large amount of medical and chemical waste retrieved from a Lantau beach to the Environmental Protection Department.

It is the third and largest delivery of medical waste to the EPD for investigation. In a letter they seriously urged EPD to take follow-up action. The Environmental Protection Department (EPD) has yet to publish the investigation outcomes after large amounts of medical and chemical waste were collected and delivered to the government on 12th July 2016 and 6th December 2016 respectively.

Reports of syringes and needles washing up on beaches all over Hong Kong have been lodged since 2008. To show the scale of the issue Mr Zukerman has concentrated his efforts on collecting dangerous medical waste from one small Lantau beach since last year. This third delivery in 12 months includes 529 syringes, 402 without needles and 127 syringes with needles. Also included are drug vials, medicine bottles and medicine packets. Some of the items have evidence of bite marks by fish. “Government has hired more contractors for beach cleaning, but I keep finding more medical waste,” Zukerman said. “I don’t want beach cleaning. I want full forensic investigation into potential source points, and preventative strategies to stop medical waste floating in our seas.”

“Some of the medicine looks to be originating from China, others are obviously from Hong Kong,” Plastic Free Seas’ CEO Tracey Read said. “The HKSAR government needs to have an inter-departmental collaboration with Guangdong counterparts to investigate the sources and nature of the waste and establish an action plan to deal with the illegal disposal of hazardous medical and veterinary waste in China and Hong Kong. Preventing the waste from leaking into the environment is of the utmost importance.”

One solution to stop improper disposal of local medicines and used syringes is to facilitate a Hong Kong “take-back” program for unwanted medicines and accessible disposal facilities for used syringes. Government can work with public and private health facilities to provide sharps bins (for used syringes) and containers for unwanted medicines.

More information
Press release on 12thJuly 2016: https://goo.gl/42p5DX
Press release on 6th December 2016: https://goo.gl/3kGZSB

 

29 June

Support a footbridge at Waterfall Bay 支持於瀑布灣興建行人橋

Posted by in Walkability | No Comments

waterfall_20bay_20dhk_20500

 

> Petition Link: http://supporthk.org/en/node/4412/ <

On 17 June 2017, a 38-year-old father slipped and fell down the at Waterfall Bay. At least three people had a fatal accident here since 2006. We asked government for a pedestrian footbridge in 2010 but progress has been slow.

We need a guarantee that government will provide a safe link for residents who walk between Wah Fu Estate and Cyberport and for those who would like to enjoy the spectacular views of the Waterfall.

Sign Now to urge the government to speed up a safe footbridge at Waterfall Bay!

AM730 column on the same: Link

News report of accident (Chinese): Link

 

> 聯署連結:http://supporthk.org/zh-hant/node/4416/ <


2017年6月17日,一名年輕爸爸於瀑布灣瀑布頂懷疑跣腳失足墮崖死亡。自2006年起,共有最少三位市民懷疑失足墮崖而喪失生命。我們早於2010年便向政府建議在瀑布頂設置安全的行人橋,但進展緩慢。

我們需要政府承諾會於瀑布頂提供安全的行人路連接數碼港及華富邨,同時令更多市民能欣賞瀑布灣的景色。

馬上簽署網上請願信,要求政府加快興建瀑布灣行人橋! 

AM730專欄:連結

新聞報導:連結

6 December

New dangerous medical waste found at HK’s beaches puts residents at risk 新危險醫料廢料襲港,對市民構成嚴重威脅

具危險性的醫療廢物持續污染香港的水質和海灘,對市民的健康及安全構成威脅。

在今年的7月12日,大批由志願者拾獲的醫療廢物已交給環境保護署進行調查,可惜至今仍未收到環境保護署對事件的回覆或發表任何調查結果。

創建香港行政總裁司馬文先生,居民Moran Zukerman及無塑海洋行政總裁Tracey Read今天於政府總部外展示大批於大嶼山海灘拾獲的醫療廢物,並再次交給環境保護署化驗及作進一步的調查。此外,他們更向環境保護署遞交信件,表達對事件的極度關注及促請有關部門盡快展開調查及跟進工作。

是次具危險性的醫療廢料在今年7月至11月於大嶼山海灘拾獲,包括303枝針筒、96枝針筒連針、超過200個玻璃小藥瓶、一枝裝滿疑似血液的試管和大量膠製藥瓶及藥袋等。部份物品更有被魚咬過的痕跡。

由於事態日趨嚴重,我們促請政府盡快成立誇部門小組調查醫療廢物的性質及來源,並設立資料儲存庫和制定行動計劃處理以上違法棄置及具危險性的醫療廢料。

如需要詳盡資訊,可參考2016年7月12日的新聞稿:https://goo.gl/42p5DX

Hazardous medical waste continues to pollute Hong Kong’s water and beaches. The waste threatens the health and safety of local residents.

The Environmental Protection Department (EPD) has yet to respond and publish the investigation outcomes after large amounts of medical waste were collected and delivered to government on 12 July 2016.

Today, Designing Hong Kong’s CEO Paul Zimmerman, Moran Zukerman, a local resident, and Plastic Free Seas’ CEO Tracey Read submitted again a large amount of medical waste retrieved from a Lantau beach to the EPD outside the Central Government Office. In a letter they urged EPD to take follow up action.

The newly found dangerous medical waste collected at one Lantau beach from July – November 2016, includes 303 syringes without needles, 96 syringes with needles, more than 200 drug vials, a collection tube suspected of containing human blood, plastic medicine bottles and packets. Some of the items have evidence of bite marks by fish.

What is now needed is an in-depth inter-departmental investigation into the source and nature of the waste and to establish a database and action plan which deals with the illegal disposal of hazardous medical waste.

The government is urged to act with expediency in response to the medical waste found.
More information
Press release on 12 July 2016: https://goo.gl/42p5DX

22 September

【新聞聲明:環團聯合要求擴大東涌河畔公園範圍】【Press Statement:Green groups jointly call for extension of proposed Tung Chung River Nature Park】

a80c601c-abf0-4a3b-966e-37f24ec9bcf6

【新聞聲明:環團聯合要求擴大東涌河畔公園範圍】

環團聯合要求將東涌河畔公園覆蓋整條東涌河(包括東、西面河段)及其河口。

為了實踐這個建議,政府需要在東涌新巿鎮擴展計劃中回購沿東涌河及河口的私人土地,擴大擬建的東涌河畔公園,並管理這個公園,以作為公眾能欣賞自然環境的休閒康樂場所,同時設置相應的防洪設施。

東涌河是香港少數保持著天然狀態的河流系統。東涌河發源自九百多米的鳯凰山和大東山〈分別是香港第二和第三高峰〉,從河源到東涌灣的河口形成連續和貫通的高山至河口海岸的整全河流生態系統,孕育不少高保育價值的物種,包括紫身枝牙鰕虎魚(Stiphodon atropurpureum) 、北江光唇魚(Acrossocheilus beijiangensis)、中國鱟〈馬蹄蟹〉(Tachypleus tridentatus)、舒氏海龍(Syngnathus schlegeli) 、黃嘴白鷺 (Egretta eulophotes), 裳鳳蝶 (Troides helena) 及白頸鴉(Corvus torquatusis)等。

東涌谷的分區計劃大綱圖在2016年1月8日刊憲,東涌河畔公園僅覆蓋東涌谷的東面。該部分劃為「其他指定用途(只適用於「河畔公園」)」,擬由渠務署管理。西面的河流和河口則劃為保育的土地用途,包括「海岸保護區」及「自然保育區」。環團現建議將西面的河流和河口都劃作「其他指定用途(只適用於「河畔公園」)」。

過去二十多年,我們觀察到與東涌河流不相容的發展和生態破壞的激增。受破壞的土地由2007年的4.8%上升至2015年的13%。

除非在新巿鎮擴展計劃中收購河岸和河口的私人土地用作河畔公園,並由相關的政府部門管理和監察,否則這些地方將會受到破壞。政府必須承認現時的規劃和環境法例,難以保護具保育價值的私人土地免受破壞。

我們估算過額外收購土地的成本約為3億 。有關計劃將會有利土地持有人、本地居民和遊客。

環團建議擴展東涌河畔公園可確保東涌河和河口可持續的保育,亦可讓現在和未來的東涌新巿鎮居民欣賞和享受自然環境,保護敏感的生境,並可設立相應的防洪設施。

支持團體:
創建香港
生態教育及資源中心
綠色力量
香港觀鳥會
長春社
世界自然基金會香港分會
大嶼山愛護水牛協會

【Press Statement:Green groups jointly call for extension of proposed Tung Chung River Nature Park】

Green groups jointly propose to extend the Tung Chung River Nature Park so that it covers both the eastern and western sections of the river, and the estuary.

To implement this proposal, the Government is to resume the private land along the Tung Chung River and the estuary as part of the Tung Chung New Town Extension Development Plan, and to manage the extended Tung Chung River Nature Park as a public amenity for leisure, recreation and appreciation of nature, as well as a drainage facility to control flooding.

Tung Chung River largely retained its natural state from Hong Kong’s second and third highest peaks, all the way down to the shallow estuary in Tung Chung Bay. It offers one of the few remaining natural low land habitats and is exceptionally rich in aquatic and coastal biodiversity. It includes many rare and endangered species, such as the Philippine Neon Goby (Stiphodon atropurpureum 紫身枝牙鰕虎魚), Beijiang Thick-lipped Barb (Acrossocheilus beijiangensis 北江光唇魚), Chinese Horseshoe Crab (Tachypleus tridentatus 中國鱟), Seaweed Pipefish (Syngnathus schlegeli 舒氏海龍), Swinhoe’s Egret (Egretta eulophotes 黃嘴白鷺), as well as the Common Birdwing (Troides helena 裳鳳蝶) and Collared Crow (Corvus torquatusis白頸鴉).

In the zoning plan for Tung Chung Valley gazetted on 08/01/2016, a river park is proposed to cover only the eastern section of Tung Chung Valley. It is zoned as OU (For River Parks only), and is expected to be managed by the Drainage Services Department. The western section of the river and the estuary are currently zoned for conservation uses including Coastal Protection Area (CPA) and Conservation Area (CA). The green groups now propose that the western section of the river and estuary should also be included under the zoning of OU (For River Parks only).

Over the past two decades we observed a proliferation of incompatible developments and eco-vandalism in Tung Chung River Valley. Ecologically degraded land areas increased from 4.8% in 2007 to approximately 13% in 2015.

Unless the private lands along the river banks and estuary are resumed under the New Town development plan, and managed and patrolled by relevant government departments as part of the River Park, these areas would be doomed. Government has at times itself admitted that under the current planning and environmental laws, it is unable to safeguard private land from environmental destruction.

The additional land acquisition cost is estimated at $300 million. This proposal will benefit the land owners, as well as local residents and visitors.

The green groups’ proposal to extend the River Nature Park will ensure the long term sustainability of Tung Chung River and the estuary as a natural resource for the use and enjoyment by existing and future residents of Tung Chung New Town, protect ecologically sensitive habitats, and allow the management of local flood hydraulics.

Designing Hong Kong
Eco-Education & Resources Centre
Green Power
Hong Kong Bird Watching Society
Lantau Buffalo Association
The Conservancy Association
WWF – Hong Kong

whole map 2 lot index plan

東涌谷分區規劃大綱圖(顯示土地用途)及地段索引圖(顯示業權),兩圖展示了政府建議8.45公頃的河畔公園和環團建議更為完整的21.5公頃的河畔公園。

東涌谷的分區計劃大綱圖在2016年1月8日刊憲,東涌河畔公園僅覆蓋東涌谷的東面(藍色虛線)。該部分劃為「其他指定用途(只適用於「河畔公園」)」。

環團現建議將西面的河流和河口(紅色虛線)都劃作「其他指定用途(只適用於「河畔公園」)」,並由政府回購擴展部分的私人土地。

The zoning plan (land use) and the lot index plan (land ownership) show the park proposed by Government (8.45Ha) and the bigger park proposed by green groups (21.5Ha).

In the zoning plan for the Tung Chung Valley gazetted on 08/01/2016, the area zoned “OU (For River Parks only)” covers only the eastern section of the Tung Chung Valley (blue striped outline).

The green groups push for the western section of the river and the estuary to be added (red dotted outline) and to resume the private lands within the extended park area.

4 August

鄉議局破壞郊野公園 土地已售予發展商 Country Parks under attack from the Heung Yee Kuk

mapV5

155fcc18663d706cccd171909342878b  new design firm

【鄉議局破壞郊野公園 土地已售予發展商】

上週末,鄉議局破壞了西貢郊野公園的不包括土地內的濕地,藉此抗議政府將該該處和鄰近土地劃為保育用地。

他們聲稱政府將私人土地劃為保育用地會限制復耕和丁屋發展潛力。這種說法非常荒謬。第一,農耕在保育用地上是經常准許的用途,即使在郊野公園的農地亦被允許。第二,我們的調查發現,慘遭破壞和斬樹的土地大部份已在2012年賣予數個發展商。原居民早已放棄了他們土地的業權,何談復耕?

鄉議局真正目的是破壞土地後,獲得在郊野公園內興建丁屋的權利。售賣鄉郊土地,毀去林木,使政府規劃上傾向給予更多發展用地以套丁建屋,這種戲碼在新界各處不斷上演,甚至蔓延至郊野公園內。

丁屋政策是不可持續的,龐大的潛在利益更會導致貪污和其他非法活動,以及更多損害環境的發展。鄉議局不斷推動在郊野公園不包括土地興建更多丁屋,將會對郊野公園及與之相連的海洋生態,帶來無法逆轉的破壞。由2010年大浪西灣事件開始,創建香港聯同其他保育及行山團體一直對抗郊野公園的發展威脅。

揭穿鄉議局「復耕」謊言

上週末在高塘下洋慘遭破壞的季節性濕地有超過6成土地屬於榮登拓展有限公司。該公司由陳麗明持有,並由范惠玲擔任秘書,在2012年2月以$6,702,008購入鄰近多個地段。我們到訪該公司的註冊地址,發現現址為“New Hall Design Limited” 的建築設計公司,同樣由陳麗明持有。職員稱公司擁有高塘下洋的土地,但負責人正在休假。她們會在下週聯絡我們,以得知鄉議局是否合法地取得業主同意下斬樹。

創建香港就大灘、屋頭、高塘和高塘下洋的研究可瀏覽:http://goo.gl/QJPt4B

大灘、屋頭、高塘和高塘下洋疑似套丁相關新聞:

蘋果日報: http://goo.gl/Bpsr5n
香港01: http://goo.gl/syAgc6

高塘下洋村民斬樹清植被報導:
蘋果日報: http://goo.gl/V0EQ7U
NOW: https://goo.gl/JfsJ0F

【Country Parks under attack from the Heung Yee Kuk】

Last Sunday, the Heung Yee Kuk felled trees and removed vegetation on wetland deep inside the Sai Kung Country Park.

It was a protest against Government’s plan to zone the area for conservation. The Kuk claimed the zoning would restrict farming on this enclave of private land. This is nonsense for two reasons. First, farming is always allowed, even on agricultural land in country parks. Secondly, our investigation has now revealed that the land in question was sold to developers in 2012. The indigenous villagers long gave up their interest in farming.

What the Heung Yee Kuk is really after is the right to build small houses on private land in country parks. The pattern of the sale of village land to developers, destruction of vegetation, the push for rezoning and the illegal sale of the “Ding” right to build small houses, is replayed constantly throughout the New Territories, including deep inside our country parks.

The Small House Policy is unsustainable, attracts illegal activities, and results in environmentally disastrous developments. The Kuk’s push for small houses in country park enclaves is harmful to the surrounding country parks and nearby marine resources. Since the Tai Long Sai Wan incident in 2010, Designing Hong Kong together with community, hiking and conservation groups has worked hard to protect the country parks from these destructive developments.

Heung Yee Kuk ‘farming’ lies exposed

Over 60% of the seasonal wetland in Ko Tong Ha Yeung which was subject to tree felling this weekend, was bought by Glory Top Develop Limited on February 2012 for $6,702,008. The company is owned by Chan Lai Ming, and Fan Wai Ling is the secretary. We visited their office which was branded “New Hall Design Limited” – a company with the same directors. Staff confirmed that the land at Ko Tong Ha Yeung was theirs, but that the person in charge was on holiday and would call us back upon her return next week. Whether the Heung Yee Kuk had approval to cut the trees is yet unclear.

Records uncovered by Designing Hong Kong’s land searches for Tai Tan, Uk Tau, Ko Tong and Ko Tong Ha Yeung can be found here:http://goo.gl/QJPt4B

News Reports on Designing Hong Kong Findings:
SCMP: http://goo.gl/kBXRWH
RTHK: http://goo.gl/0OUFZJ

News Report on villagers tree felling and vegetation clearance:
Hong Kong Free Press: https://goo.gl/10Ynma

20 July

大量危險醫療廢料襲港,團體促請政府徹查廢料來源 Dangerous medical waste found at HK’s beaches

  

大量危險醫療廢料襲港,團體促請政府徹查廢料來源

香港水域時常受大量垃圾污染,此情況在雨季尤其嚴重。上月連場暴雨,大量垃圾沖上沙灘及沿岸地區,造成海洋生態災難。司馬文表示,我們現在需要的,不是行政長官及官員到海邊執垃圾「做show」,而是要更深入認真徹查垃圾的種類及來源,防止廢料繼續污染海港。

創建香港行政總裁司馬文先生、無塑海洋教育項目經理梁嘉麗小姐及居民Moran Zukerman今天展示大批於大嶼山三白灣 (愉景北商場旁) 拾獲的醫療廢料,這些廢料由本年5月起開始收集,經分類及調查後,有明顯證據顯示廢料來自中國廣東省。

這次拾獲的醫療及化學廢料 (抗生素及預防藥物)主要是供人類及牲畜使用,具危險性及可能帶毒性。司馬文把廢料分類及調查後,找到大量藥樽、針筒、膠及玻璃樽、透析包/靜脈注射包、藥丸及完好無損的安瓿。從部份廢料上的牌子及印有的簡體字,明顯證明廢料來自中國廣東省。他更在廢料中找到中國政府交通部官員的工作證件。

大雨或洪水把露天棄置的垃圾沖進河流及海洋是香港及內地存在已久的問題。醫療廢料亦會對市民的健康及安全構成威脅,泳客有機會因踩到針筒而受傷,或造成感染。居港15年的Moran Zukerman表示「醫療廢料問題不只是垃圾問題。一方面,它對海洋及四周環境造成破瓌。另一方面,從部份廢料出現魚類的咬痕可見,人類進食的魚類產品亦可能因此而受到污染,故最終受害的仍然是市民。

梁嘉麗表示,自2013年起,無塑海洋及Green DB一直有向海事處及環境保護署投訴海灘出現醫療廢料的問題,傳媒亦有相關報導。然而,環境保護署的調查一直沒有回音,亦未有針對中港兩地產生廢料的組織的相關行動,彷彿當局不打算處理相關問題。

我們促請政府正視問題,作出相關調查及行動。相關廢料亦會送往環境保護署作進一步化驗及跟進。

==========================================================

Dangerous medical waste found at HK’s beaches 

Large amounts of marine waste washes up at Hong Kong’s beaches regularly, especially during rainy season. Heavy rain fails over the last month has triggered large amounts of waste washing into the seas.

“What is now needed is an in-depth investigation into the type and source of the waste rather than black bag beach cleaning actions,” said Paul Zimmerman.

Paul Zimmerman, CEO of Designing Hong Kong, together with Julia Leung, Program Manager – Education of Plastic Free Seas and Moran Zukerman, a local resident, presented dangerous medical waste found among rubbish collected from a Lantau beach, Sam Pak Wan, since May this year. Many items had definitive markings pointing at locations in the Guangdong Province.

Medical waste collected were for human and veterinarian use (antibiotics and preventative medicine), and many are hazardous and potentially poisonous.

Paul Zimmerman explained: “We sorted and investigated the waste, most of them are vials, syringes, plastic/glass bottles, dialysis bags, medical pills, fully intact glass ampoules. From the brands and simplified Chinese text, it is obviously come from locations in the Guangdong Province. We even found a working pass from a Chinese government transport officer among the waste.”

Open waste dumps are a long standing problem in Hong Kong and on the Mainland. Exposed waste is subject to flooding and washing out to rivers and seas. Hazardous medical waste poses a health risk as beachgoers could injure and infect themselves by stepping on needles. Moran Zukerman, a local resident who has been living in Hong Kong for over 15 years, expressed his concern: “Medical waste is beyond littering, it’s not only harmful to the environment and oceans, but also causes a threat to human beings who consume the fish and many of the medical products shows signs of fish bites who are exposed to those dangerous items, and are eventually consumed by humans.”

Julia Leung explained: “Plastic Free Seas and Green DB have since 2013 reported the medical waste found on beaches to the Marine Department and the Environmental Protection Department. There were also media reports at that time. It is entirely unclear what investigation has been conducted by the EPD into the sources, and what action have been taken to contact the authorities and medical institutions both in Hong Kong and the Mainland.”

“We urge the government to seriously investigate the medical waste we found. The items will be sent to the Environmental Protection Department for investigation and follow up action.”

 

 

 

20 July

Fix it: Stop waste before it floats

Waste retrieved from Aberdeen Harbour by the Save Aberdeen Harbour Alliance on 25 June 2016

Fix it: Stop waste before it floats

Report of open waste dump at Wei Ling Ding island: http://goo.gl/WKOzQy (Chinese only)

Facebook video of illegal waste dumps in Hong Kong: https://goo.gl/77r5AL

 

Let’s not blame the rain

For as long as the government has tracked data on marine refuse, it shows that during the rainy season, the weight of marine refuse collected from the seas and shores increases.

The latest increase in floating rubbish washing onto Hong Kong shores has been linked by the government with the recent extreme rain events throughout the region.

The relationship is plausible. Rainwater washes floating debris left on the land into drains, culverts, streams and rivers, and on to the open seas.

Extreme rain also causes flooding which dislodges debris and again this will flow to the sea. So what to do next? First of all, let’s not blame the rain and climate change.

The Pearl River Delta has (for a very long period) had a subtropical climate with rainy seasons. Repeated sudden deluges of large amounts of water have been a fact of life for many centuries. Climate change is predicted to result in fewer rain days but an increase in the average rainfall intensity.

 

Consumerism is a problem – but not the cause of marine waste

Others blame consumerism and our lifestyle, especially the shift to packaged food distribution, and one-off serving containers for meals and drinks.

While correctly pointing out that behaviour changes can significantly reduce the volumes of waste produced in this region with rapid urbanisation, rise in income and the feeding of millions of workers, it does not address the cause of floating marine refuse.

 

Waterproof all waste handling

Floating marine refuse can only be addressed by fixing the structural problem of poorly contained rubbish lying on land.

The coastal dump site at the island of Wei Ling Ding is not the only one along the coast and rivers of the mainland and Hong Kong.

Look no further than the villages and brownfields of the New Territories, or look around Hong Kong Island, and discover how much rubbish lies open and exposed to rain at the government’s refuse collection points.

Add to that the illegal dumping, including hazardous medical waste, by unscrupulous collectors of waste.

By all means, the government should model sea currents to try and pinpoint the source of the recent upsurge in floating waste, but we should not waste time.

With years of evidence of increases in marine refuse during the rainy seasons we can safely agree on the general narrative: we need to waterproof our waste handling from consumers to waste processors, both in Hong Kong and China. And with climate scientists predicting more extreme rainfall, we need to do this sooner rather than later.

(Article was first published in the South China Morning Post, 16 July 2016)

29 June

「反對東大嶼都會計劃」橫額首掛交椅洲 Banner hanged on Kau Yi Chau to object East Lantau Metropolis

13558780_10153820186399397_3739617002500248238_o (新聞稿2016年6月26日) 7名來自多個環保和關注團體的成員,今日登上計劃填海作東大嶼都會的交椅洲,掛上一幅長40米,闊3米的大型橫額,抗議政府帶頭破壞程序公義,向全國人大委員長張德江展示本應年底才公布的大嶼山發展藍圖模型,當中更包括東大嶼都會計劃及其大型策略性道路系統,惟政府在公眾諮詢期間卻未有公開該模型。多個團體同時發表聯合聲明,強調現時東大嶼都會和策略性道路系統的建設沒有得到充分的理據支持,很可能成為新一個「大白象工程」,政府應撤回現時在立法會工務小組的「中部水域人工島策略性研究」撥款申請。 發展局在5月22日的「局長隨筆」率先回覆,指「相關模型只是用以輔助說明大嶼山發展的概念,並非定案」,其後局方回覆守護大嶼聯盟的查詢時,又指「在今年1月至4月舉行的大嶼山發展公眾參與活動的公眾論壇及諮詢會上,由於參與人數眾多,展示實物模型在此情况並不適合,故我們選擇以投影片配合詳細講解」。發展局的解釋極為牽強,該模型已清楚展示東大嶼都會的整體樓宇佈局、道路網絡、填海範圍等重要資料,而模型在大嶼山發展公眾諮詢的過程從來沒有向公眾公開,是嚴重剝奪公眾的知情權。 政府最近在立法會工務小組提交最新的文件,仍無提供充分的資料證明此發展項目的需要,如香港是否需要第三個核心商業區和東大嶼都會與解決未來房屋供應的關係,加上政府亦沒有全面考慮發展棕土、短租及閒置官地等其他較佳的方式來增加土地供應,反映政府推行東大嶼都會計劃的理據薄弱。計劃涉及大規模填海和多項大型基建,將會成為香港史上最昂貴的「大白象工程」。 東大嶼都會需要進行大規模填海工程,對海洋生態和水質造成極大影響,而策略性道路系統則會入侵郊野公園和許多生態敏感地區,為南大嶼山、梅窩等帶來龐大的發展壓力,並會增加在附近水域航運的船隻流量,危害漁業資源。 在缺乏任何數據及研究支持下,東大嶼都會計劃不應草率上馬,團體促請政府應撤回正在立法會工務小組的「中部人工島策略性研究」撥款的申請,並應提供充足的資料,如全港土地資料庫和東大嶼都會與解決未來房屋供應的關係,以回應市民的質疑。這樣政府和民間才可再次合作,大嶼山才可走向可持續發展。 多個環保團體和關注團體亦發起網上聯署平台(網址:https://goo.gl/vMxQLe),鼓勵公眾直接將網上意見書傳送至發展局。團體同時呼籲立法會議員及擬參選來屆立法會選舉的候選人簽署「反對東大嶼都會計劃」約章,爭取他們支持擱置東大嶼都會計劃及中部水域人工島策略性研究撥款。 聯署團體(依筆劃序)﹕ 本土研究社、守護大嶼聯盟、長春社、城西關注組、香港海豚保育學會、香港觀鳥會、創建香港、綠色力量、綠色和平 DSC_1860 (Press release, 26 June 2016) After landing on Kau Yi Chau which is planned for reclamation to be established as the East Lantau Metropolis (ELM), seven activists from green groups and concerned groups hung a huge banner with a length of 40 meters and a width of 3 meters to protest against violation of procedural justice by the government. The government had showed a model of Lantau development blueprint, including ELM and large scale strategic road system which should be published at the end of 2016, to chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, Zhang Dejiang. However, this model had not been shown by the government during public consultation. Green groups and concerned groups issued a joint statement to emphasise the justification to support the construction of ELM and strategic road system was not enough and it was of high potential to become another “White Elephant”. Government should withdraw the application for appropriation of Strategic studies for artificial islands in the central waters from the Legco public works subcommittee. Development Bureau replied through “My Blog” on 22nd May that the concerned model was just used to enhance the explanation of the concept of Lantau Development and was not a finalized model. Afterwards, Development Bureau replied Save Lantau Alliance’s enquiry and pointed out that, “Since it is too crowded during the public forum and consultation meeting of Lantau development public engagement from January to April 2016, we chose to explain the plan by using a slideshow, rather than a physical model.” The explanation of the Development Bureau was just a far-fetched excuse since the model had showed clearly details of ELM such as the distribution of buildings, road network and a range of reclamation which was not disclosed to the public during the public consultation of Lantau Development. It is a severe deprivation of the right to know by the public. The latest documents submitted by the government, to Legco public works subcommittee still could not provide enough justifications to support the plan of establishing the ELM. For example, does Hong Kong need the third core commercial zone? What is the relationship between ELM and solving the problem of future housing supply? Besides, the government did not consider other better ways to increase the land supply such as developing brownfield, government land for short term tenancy and idle government land. It showed the justification to establishing ELM was weak. Furthermore, as the large-scale of reclamation and many capital constructions are required, it would be the most expensive “White Elephant” project for Hong Kong. Large-scale reclamation works was required for ELM, which would severely damage the marine ecosystem and deteriorate the water quality. The strategic road system would invade country parks and many ecologically sensitive areas, bringing huge development pressure to South Lantau and Mui Wo and damaging the fishery resources by increasing the vessel traffic on the water around. Lack of data and study support means the ELM should not be established instantly. Groups urged the government to withdraw the application for appropriation of Strategic studies for artificial islands in the central waters from the Legco public works subcommittee and provide enough information such as land database for Hong Kong and the relationship between ELM and solving the problem of future housing supply, so as to reply to the citizen’s questions. In this case, the government and the public cooperate again to ensure the sustainable development of Lantau can be achieved. Green groups and concerned groups had set up an online platform (Website: https://goo.gl/bFbsNR) to encourage the public to directly send the comment to the Development Bureau. At the same time, groups call Legislative council members and candidates intended to participate in the coming Legco election to sign the charter of “Opposition to East Lantau Metropolis” in order to ask for their support to stop the ELM and the application for appropriation of strategic studies for artificial islands in the central waters. Co-signatories (in alphabetical order): Designing Hong Kong , Greenpeace Green power Hong Kong Dolphin Conservation Society Liber Research Community Sai Wan Concern Save Lantau Alliance The Conservancy Association The Hong Kong Bird Watching Society

21 June

【大灘、屋頭及高塘超過50間疑似「套丁」申請】Front men schemes covering 50+ small houses in Tai Tan, Uk Tau and Ko Tong

Who are destroying our Country Parks

 

【大灘、屋頭及高塘超過50間疑似「套丁」申請】

“Tai Tan, Uk Tau and Ko Tong suspected over 50 Small Houses Front man Scheme”
(Please scroll down for English )

創建香港「大灘、屋頭及高塘土地業權」研究簡報:
http://goo.gl/F28PDQ

大灘、屋頭及高塘近年在城規會有多宗丁屋申請。創建香港經過近一個多月的土地業權研究,我們發現該區超過50間丁屋申請曾為發展商(公司或某批業主)所持有,再轉讓予村民或申請人,並向地政總署及城規會申建「丁屋」。發展商單在屋頭和大灘,上述交易與早前被裁定罪成的沙田大輋村「套丁案」(案件編號:DCCC25/2015)所用手法十分相似。

創建香港在6月7日去信敦促地政總署、城規會和廉政公署採取以下措施以預防相鄰的「套丁」申請:

1. 處理「丁屋」申請時,地政總署應當徹底研究土地的交易紀錄。可疑的申請應該詳細研究。
2. 當局應拒絕發展商假借村民名義作出的集體申請。只有個人申請方可被考慮。
3. 當局須評估丁屋申請人在本港居住的意向。地政總署可與入境事務處合作,以斷定申請人是否通常居住在香港。只有香港居民可以獲得批准。
4. 設立網上公開資料庫,供公眾查閱「丁屋」申請的資料,包括申請人、土地交易紀錄、土地狀況及審批狀況等資訊。
5. 城規會及規劃署在決定土地用途時,必須考慮土地交易紀錄。這是確保規劃圖則不會助長「套丁」的重要一環。
6. 為防止政府官員犯法,廉政公署正為地政總署提供建議,以減少「丁屋」申請程序中出現貪污的風險。可惜的是,建議報告並不會向公眾公開,只會交給地政總署參考。我們要求公開報告,使社會大眾知道和監察預防「套丁」的情況。

相關新聞:

蘋果日報: http://goo.gl/Bpsr5n
南華早報: http://goo.gl/kBXRWH
星島日報: http://goo.gl/2TGG8i
香港電台: http://goo.gl/0OUFZJ

Front men schemes covering 50+ small houses in Tai Tan, Uk Tau and Ko Tong

(Designing Hong Kong “Tai Tan, Uk Tau and Ko Tong Land Ownership Study” PowerPoint presentation:
http://goo.gl/F28PDQ)

A study of land transactions in Tai Tan, Uk Tau and Ko Tong shows that for more than 50 small house applications to the Lands Department and/or Town Planning Board the land was first bought by developers and transferred to the applicants just prior to their applications. These patterns are strikingly similar to the front man scheme discovered in the Sha Tin Tai Che Village court case (No. DCCC25/2015) during which the Court considered this an illegal practice.

Based on our findings we made the following recommendations to the Administration, the Town Planning Board and the ICAC to deter front men schemes abusing the small house policy:

1. Upon receipt of applications for small house developments the Lands Department should consider the transaction history of the site(s) involved. Suspicious cases should be examined in detail.
2. Group applications by “dings” on behalf of developers should be rejected. Only applications made by individual applicants should be considered.
3. The intention of the applicant to live in their small house must be considered including a study of their immigration records to determine whether applicants ordinarily reside in Hong Kong. Only ordinary residents should be allowed to apply.
4. Details of applications for small houses must be made public with an online database showing the applicant, an overview of the land transactions and current status, and the progress of the applications.
5. When considering draft plans and applications, the Town Planning Board and the Planning Department must take into account the land transaction history. This is essential in ensuring that the Board does not aid and abet front men schemes. 
6. To prevent government officials from breaching the law, ICAC is drafting recommendations on how the Lands Department can minimize risks when handling applications which create development values. We call for the report to be disclosed to the public. It should not be restricted to the Lands Department. A detailed review should be published so that the general public can better understand how front men schemes can be prevented.

News Reports:
Apple Daily: http://goo.gl/Bpsr5n
SCMP: http://goo.gl/kBXRWH
SingTao: http://goo.gl/2TGG8i
RTHK: http://goo.gl/0OUFZJ

HK01: http://goo.gl/syAgc6

16 May

Queen’s Pier to City Hall?? or Pier 9 and 10?? 大會堂重置皇后碼頭?還是選址在9號10號碼頭?

Vote on-line - Click here!

Queen’s Pier was demolished in 2007 as part of the Central reclamation. It has since been in a government storage facility on Lantau Island.  

The Development Bureau proposes re-assembly of Queen’s Pier between piers 9 and 10. The cost is around HK$300 million. It includes expensive marine works, reconstructing the seawall and provision of landing steps.

立即按此支持聯署!

皇后碼頭在2007年因中環填海計劃而遭到清拆。拆卸組件存放在大嶼山政府倉庫。

發展局建議將皇后碼頭重置在9號和10號碼頭,預計涉及3億公帑支出,當中包括海事工程、重建海堤和提供登岸梯級。

At the same time, the Development Bureau proposes to build a covered piazza near the original site of Queen’s Pier at City Hall. The piazza will “through paving and landscape design … commemorate the historical significance of Queen’s Pier.” The estimated cost is 55 million. (C&W DC Paper No. 44/2016).

與此同時,發展局建議在大會堂對出(皇后碼頭原址)興建有簷篷的廣場。這個新廣場將會加入歷史元素「透過地面鋪裝及園景設計紀念皇后碼頭的歷史重要性。」(中西區區議會文件第44/2016號)預計的建築費用約5千5百萬。

Our proposal is to re-assemble Queen’s Pier at City Hall (as close as possible to its original location):

1. Save HK$200million (No need for marine works at Pier 9/10, no need for a new covered piazza at City Hall);

2. Re-instate Edinburgh Place as a place of ceremony, including City Hall, the dias, Queen’s Pier and the Memorial Garden;

3. Queen’s Pier near its original location will remind hongkongers and visitors of one of Victoria Harbour’s former coastlines;

4. The Queen’s Pier roof will provide shelter from sun and rain for those visiting Edinburgh Place, and seating for those waiting for transport along Lung Wu Road.

Where should Queen’s Pier return? Vote -Click here!

我們建議在大會堂附近重置皇后碼頭(選址在最接近原址的位置) :

1. 節省最少2億公帑(除了省卻在9號與10號碼頭之間的海事工程,亦不需要在大會堂建設一個新的有蓋廣場)

2. 修復愛丁堡廣場的整體格局,包括大會堂、愛丁堡廣場、檢閱台和皇后碼頭

3. 原址重建的皇后碼頭有助香港人和旅客回顧舊有的海岸線

4. 皇后碼頭的新簷可以為愛丁堡廣場遊人或龍和道等車乘客提供坐椅和遮蔭

皇后碼頭應當何去何從立即按此支持聯署!