12 July

環團聯合聲明 – 拒絕參與破壞郊野公園 Joint Statement – Green groups refuse to participate in the destruction of Country Parks

7190b8c4-2f21-4034-aaa7-c9e5e5113ab1

環團聯合聲明

拒絕參與破壞郊野公園

根據二零一七年施政報告第一百一十七項,政府提出以郊野公園邊陲地帶興建公營房屋及非牟利老人院。去年五月十七日,政府確認邀請香港房屋協會(房協)就發展郊野公園進行研究,今年四月二十七日,房協委託顧問公司,就兩幅分別位於大欖郊野公園及馬鞍山郊野公園內的邊陲地帶,進行生態及發展的可行性研究。

多個環保及關注團體在七月十一日獲邀出席諮詢會議,就生態研究方法提供意見。我們極度不滿政府提出開發郊野公園的計劃,無視《郊野公園條例》的立法原意和「郊野公園及海岸公園委員會」的功能,破壞行之有效的保護區制度。另外,政府一方面委託土地供應專責小組進行公眾諮詢,聲稱要尋求共識之際,又著手計劃開發郊野公園,可見政府一直都希望發展郊野公園。故此我們拒絕參與有前設的諮詢,為政府破壞郊野公園的行為背書。

佔全港土地四成的郊野公園是香港珍貴的資產,除了生態價值,亦兼具保護集水區、教育、景觀及康樂等價值,其城市功能並非用作土地開發的儲備。房協的研究只將生態價值及技術可行性作為發展郊野公園的考量,是矮化郊野公園的功能,容易向公眾發放錯誤訊息,以為單單藉著標榜生態評估合法和具科學性,識別出郊野公園內相對較低生態價值的地點,就能合理化開發郊野公園的計劃。

政府一直使用「邊陲地帶」一詞,其含糊的定義進一步誤導市民以為這些地方保育價值較低。但從房協的研究範圍清晰可見,所謂的「邊陲地帶」根本就位於郊野公園範圍以內。而且根據《郊野公園條例》,郊野公園界線非常清晰,並無郊野公園「核心」「邊陲」之分,發展郊野公園邊陲與發展郊野公園無異,若郊野公園邊陲能夠發展,不但立下不良先例,與立法原意相違背,也對生態、景觀、康樂、教育價值等帶來無可逆轉的影響。

政府一直建議使用郊野公園興建公營房屋及非牟利安老院舍,刻意利用「公眾需要」挑戰《郊野公園條例》的發展門檻,亦沒有全面考慮這些用途的適切選址,將保育及房屋議題放在對立面,我們對此深表遺憾。政府不應誤導市民,惡意營造發展郊野公園的迫切性,製造社會矛盾,反而應善用現有的土地資源解決房屋需要及老人福利,如優先規劃棕土、政府閒置土地等。

聯署團體(排名不分先後)﹕
長春社、世界自然基金會香港分會、綠色力量、香港觀鳥會、創建香港、綠色和平、綠惜地球、綠領行動、環保觸覺、西貢之友、海下之友、島嶼活力行動、Hong Kong Outdoors、保衛郊野公園、香港地球之友、香港大學學生會理學會生態學及生物多樣性學會、香港海豚保育學會、香港鄉郊基金

二零一八年七月十二日

DSCF6603

DSCF6557

Joint Statement
Green groups refuse to participate in the destruction of Country Parks

Paragraph 117 of the 2017 Policy Address considered the allocation of country park areas for development of public housing and non-profit-making elderly homes. On 17th May 2017, the Government confirmed that it had invited the Hong Kong Housing Society (HKHS) to undertake studies regarding two sites located on the periphery of Tai Lam Country Park and Ma On Shan Country Park. On 27th April 2018, HKHS announced that it had appointed consultant to study the feasibility of developing the sites.

Green and concern groups received an invitation to attend a consultation meeting on 11th July and to comment on the proposed ecological survey methodology. We are frustrated and discontented with the Government’s proposal of developing the Country Parks, which ignores the original intention of the Country Park Ordinance, the function of Country and Marine Park Board, and undermines the well-established and effective system of protected areas. Furthermore, the Government and HKHS started to plan for developing the periphery of Country Parks before the completion of the public consultation for land supply which claimed to seek for public consensus. All of the above suggests that the Government has always intended to develop the Country Parks. And therefore we refused to join the meeting under such premise and to endorse the act to destruct Country Parks.

Comprising 40% of total land area, Country Park is a valuable asset for Hong Kong. Apart from ecological value, Country Park also contains the value of protecting water gathering grounds, education, landscape, recreation, and so on. The function of Country Park should not be served as land reserve for development. However, the study by HKHS focuses on the ecological value of Country Parks and the technical feasibility for development. Such practice would neglect other important and legal functions of Country Park other than ecological aspect. This would mislead the public to think that the areas of relatively low ecological value at the periphery of Country Parks can be identified solely through the current ecological assessment, thus justifying Country Parks can be developed in a scientific and legitimate way.

The government misleads the public further by using the ambiguous term “periphery” suggesting that these areas are of relatively low ecological value. However, the study areas provided to HKHS are clearly within the Country Park boundary. Country Parks are delineated under the Country Park Ordinance without distinguishing their core or periphery. There is in fact no difference in developing Country Parks or developing the periphery of Country Parks. All such development causes irreversible impacts on their ecological, landscape, recreational and educational values. Moreover, any predetermined development of Country Park areas sets a bad precedent.

Finally, the Government has proposed to use Country Parks for public housing and elderly homes and to test the Country Park Ordinance by using the term “public need”. Without consideration of the availability of ample suitable sites for these types of development, the government puts conservation and housing development unnecessarily in a confrontational position. The Government continues to emphasize the urgency of development of Country Parks and create unnecessary social conflicts. Instead, comprehensive planning and the wise-use of land resources for all social needs should be promoted with priority for redevelopment of brownfields and other under-utilized or idle sites.

Co-signatories:
The Conservancy Association, WWF-Hong Kong, Green Power, The Hong Kong Bird Watching Society, Designing Hong Kong, Greenpeace, The Green Earth, Greeners Action, Green Sense, Friends of Sai Kung, Friends of Hoi Ha, Living Islands Movement, Hong Kong Outdoors, Save Our Country Parks, Friends of the Earth (HK), Ecology & Biodiversity Society, SS, HKUSU, Hong Kong Dolphin Conservation Society, The Hong Kong Countryside Foundation

12th July 2018

31 May

Nam Sang Wai Conservation Poll Result 保育南生圍投票結果公佈

南生圍記招合照20180502
八成三市民支持南生圍保育
環圍呼籲政府著手研究保育方案

今年三月南生圍的蘆葦床起火,南生圍的保育狀況及威脅再度受到關注。環保團體創建香港、綠色和平、綠色力量、長春社、香港觀鳥會及香港地球之友早前委託香港大學民意研究計劃進行全港性抽樣問卷調查,成功訪問一千零三名市民有關南生圍保育的意見。

民調指當中八成三的市民支持保育南生圍的自然景觀;六成一的市民支持根據法例向土地業權人收地、或以非原址換地等方式,長遠保育南生圍的自然環境。長春社公共事務經理吳希文指從民調中清晰可見,市民希望保育南生圍毋庸置疑,民調結果亦顯示有不少聲音支持政府出手保育南生圍,過往政府在新自然保育政策下認為不少保育方案並不切實可行,然而新自然保育政策自2004年推行至今已超過十年,政府宜再檢討當中各保育方案。

香港觀鳥會高級保育主任胡明川又指南生圍有獨特的生態及景觀,在2004年被加入新自然保育政策須優先加強保育地點清單之中,其重要性不比清單中的其他項目低。南生圍毗連具國際保育地位的米埔內后海灣拉姆薩爾濕地,亦位於「濕地保育區」內,是后海灣濕地生態系統不可劃割的一部分。南生圍的生態環境豐富,有魚塘、泥灘、潮澗帶等,其大片的蘆葦床更是全港數一數二。這為不少具保育價值的雀鳥及野生動物提供覓食及棲息地,包括全球瀕危的黑臉琵鷺、受區域關注的中華攀雀、受本地關注的黃葦鳽,以及全球近危的歐亞水獺。該區魚塘旁邊的樹木也是冬候鳥普通鸕鷀在后海灣地區重要的晚棲地。因此,南生圍的生態環境及必須要被保育。

兩位立法會議員鄺俊宇及朱凱廸亦分別指出南生圍的公眾價值,面對破壞,政府不應坐視不理。南生圍鄰近元朗市中心,除了擁有具高生態及保育價值的生境,南生圍也是不少電影及電視劇的取景地方,假日時亦吸引不少遊人前來踩單車、野餐、郊遊等,是受市民喜愛的鄉郊休閒地點。近十年來已有七次火災,然而未有一人被捕,再加上發展項目的威脅,不禁令人懷疑政府是否故意縱容環境破壞。

綠色力量總監鄭睦奇博士表示民調中見出市民對於收回南生圍、或以非原址換地等長遠保育方案並不抗拒,甚至支持,政府應著力研究南生圍的長遠保育方案。短期內,政府亦應出招以防南生圍再被火燒和各種破壞威脅,制訂管理協議令現時的生境得以被保護和管理,讓市民和下一代都可以享受這片自然環境。

問卷調查結果:
 https://www.hkupop.hku.hk/english/report/nsw_2018/index.html

83% Citizens support Nam Sang Wai Conservation
Green Groups call for Government Conservation Proposal

In March of this year, the reed beds in Nanshangwai caught fire, and the state of conservation and threats in Namshangwai give rise to concerns again. A number of green groups Designing Hong Kong, Greenpeace, Green Power, The Conservancy Association (CA), Hong Kong Bird Watching Society (HKBWS) and Friends of the Earth (HK) entrusted the Public Opinion Program of the University of Hong Kong (HKU POP) to conduct public opinion survey on the conservation of Nam Seng Wai and successfully interviewed 1,300 citizens.
According to the poll result, 83% of citizens supported the conservation of the natural landscape in Nam Sang Wai. 61% of citizens support land resumption from landlord with reference to law and the non-in-situ exchange etc, in hopes of continuously protect and conserve the natural environment of Nam Seng Wai. Mr. Hei Man Ng, the Campaign Manager of CA, pointed out that citizen’s determination on conserving Nam Seng Wai is undoubted based on the poll’s result. It also showed that Hong Kong government should put effort on conserving Nam Seng Wai from the public’s perspective. He further supplemented that the conservation measures under the New Nature Conservation Policy are no longer practical as the policy has been implemented since 2004. Government should review the conservation measures under the policy again.
Ms. Ming Chuan Woo, the senior conservation officer in HKBWS, stated that Nam Sang Wai has its unique ecology and natural landscape. Nam Sang Wai has been listed as one of the priority sites for enhanced conservation under the New Nature Conservation Policy since 2004. Its importance is at similar level of other priority site. Moreover, Nam Sang Wai is adjacent to the Ramsar Site, which is well-known in the world, and inside the Conservation Area. It is an important part of the Deep Bay Wetland Ecosystem that cannot be separated.
She pointed out that there is a rich ecological environment in Nam Sang Wai, including fish ponds, mudflats and tidal belts. Its large reed beds are one of the best in Hong Kong. This provides forage and habitat for many conservative species of birds and wildlife, including the globally endangered Black-faced Spoonbill, Chinese Penduline Tit that are of regional concern, Yellow Bittern that are of local concern, and Eurasian Otter. The trees next to the fish ponds in this area are also important habitats for common migratory birds Great Cormorant in the Deep Bay area. Therefore, the ecological environment in Nam Sang Wai must be conserved.
Mr. Chun Yu Kwong and Mr. Hoi Dick Chu, the two legislators, also pointed out the recreational value of Nam Sang Wai among general public. The government should take action to confront the land destruction. Nam Sang Wai is close to the Yuen Long Town Hall. Apart from having a high ecological and conservation value, Nam Sang Wai is also a location for many movies and TV dramas production. It attracts many tourists to cycle, relax and have picnic during holidays. It is a very popular rural leisure spot. In the past ten years, there have been seven fires. However, no one has been arrested. Couple with the private development threats, it is suspicious that the government intentionally indulge the destructive behavior.
Dr. Luk Ki Cheng, the director of the Green Power, said that the citizens are not reluctant to, or even support, the land resumption or the non-in-situ exchange etc as long-term measures in Nam Sang Wai Conservation. The government should make efforts in studying the long-term conservation program of Nam Sang Wai. In the short term, the Government should also take measures to prevent the fire and various threats of destruction, and formulate a management agreement so that the existing habitat can be protected and managed. Meanwhile, public and the next generation can enjoy this natural environment

Poll result:
https://www.hkupop.hku.hk/english/report/nsw_2018/index.html

12 September

「民間土地資源專家組」成立 Formation of a Citizens Task Force on Land Resources

 

tyutyu

 

「民間土地資源專家組」成立

新成立的「民間土地資源專家組」由27位來自不同界別的人士組成,小組內有來自商界的人士,民間土地關注組等。
行政長官於上星期委任了「土地供應專責小組」的成員,關注香港土地事宜的民間專家組亦隨之成立,並於九月七日舉行了第一次準備會議。

在行政長官林鄭月娥女士的競選政綱中,她曾承諾會集合社會的智慧和作出讓步,成立一個能代表社會各界的土地專責小組。很可惜的是,在政府成立的「土地供應專責小組」內,很多組別的人士都不在名單上,例如一些社區關注組和年青民間研究者。

民間專家組將會每月進行會議,有需要時更會加開會議。如場地許可,會議過程更可向廣大市民公開。

「民間土地資源專家組」除了集中研究香港土地供應來源,更希望擴闊和促進於長遠可持續發展的策略,妥善土地使用和資源保護上具爭議性事項的討論。

在民間專家組下將有三個獨立的工作小組:可持續發展策略及指標小組、現時及未來土地使用小組和土地供應小組。所有小組將會全面地檢視和根據人口、移民、經濟發展、就業、土地使用、房屋和土地供應制定相應政策和向政府提交建議。

民間專家組亦會根據公開資料守則向政府索取與「土地供應專責小組」相同和即時的會議文件和資料。

民間專家組的成立是希望能在理性討論香港土地使用和供應選擇時,帶出具建設性的想法和有效率地增加社區大眾的參與。

附件: 「民間土地資源專家組」小組成員名單

組織/專業 姓名
1. 建築師 蔡宏興
2. CoVision 16, 建築師 關兆倫
3. 中西區關注組 羅雅寧
4. 創建香港 司馬文
5. 工程師 Ronald Taylor
6. 工程師 李智明
7. 經濟/金融 David Webb
8. 香港浸會大學地理系 鄧永成教授
9. 香港鄉郊基金 林超英
10. 大學教授 方志恒博士
11. 香港大學 侯智恒教授
12. 香港中文大學 未來城市研究所 伍美琴教授
13. 香港中文大學 梁啟智
14. 土地監察 李永達
15. 東大嶼都會關注組 任憲邦
16. 律師 Azan Marwah
17. 律師 Ruy Barretto
18. 土地正義聯盟, 立法會議員 朱凱迪
19. 香港房屋委員會, 立法會議員 尹兆堅
20. 本土研究社 陳劍青
21. 本土研究社, 城市規劃師 林芷筠
22. 城市規劃師 Ian Brownlee
23. 公共專業聯盟 黎廣德
24. 公共專業聯盟 George Cautherley
25. 測量師 姚松炎
26. 測量師 Roger Nissim
27. 土地正義聯盟 梁德明

P9072992

P90729171

P90729401

Formation of a Citizens Task Force on Land Resources

A “Citizens Task Force on Land Resources” has been formed with 27 members bringing together a wide range of interests from business to land justice groups.

Plans to form a Citizens Task Force followed the announcement of the membership of the government’s Task Force on Land Supply last week. A preparatory meeting was held on 7 September.

The Chief Executive in her manifesto promised to “draw on the collective wisdom of society and recognise the need for compromises” and to “establish a dedicated task force representing various sectors… ”. However, the government Task Force appears to omit many sectors.  Absent, for example, are concern and research groups including younger talent.

The Citizens Task Force will meet monthly or as needed. The meetings will be public subject to available venues.

The Citizens Task Force on Land Resources seeks to broaden and facilitate the debate to some critical issues including sustainable development, the optimal uses of land, and the conservation of resources.

Three working groups will be formed for evidence based discussions on Sustainability Principles and Indicators; Current and Future Land Use; and Land Supply. They will consider all available evidence on population, immigration, economic development, employment, land use, housing and land supply.

Under the Code of Access to Information the Citizens Task Force will request Government for equal and timely access to all relevant information available to Government and its Task Force.

The Citizens Task Force seeks to generate constructive ideas and effectively engage the community in rational discussions over Hong Kong’s land use and land supply options.

Annex: Participants in the Citizen Task Force on Land Resources

Organization / Profession Name
1. Architect Donald Choi
2. CoVision 16 Kwan Siu Lun
3. Central and Western District Concern Group Katty Law
4. Designing Hong Kong Paul Zimmerman
5. Engineer Ronald Taylor
6. Engineer C M Lee
7. Finance/Economy David Webb
8. HKBU (Department of Geography) Tang Wing Shing
9. HK Countryside Foundation Lam Chiu Ying
10. University professor Dr. Brian Fong
11. HKU Billy Hau
12. Institute of Future Cities, CUHK Mee Kam Ng
13. CUHK Leung Kai Chi
14. Land Watch Lee Wing Tat
15. East Lantau Metropolis Concern Group Tom Yam
16. Legal Azan Marwah
17. Legal Ruy Barretto
18. Legislator, Land Justice League Chu Hoi Dick
19. Legislator, Housing Authority Andrew Wan Siu Kin
20. Liber Research Chan Kim Ching
21. Liber Research Camille Lam
22. Town Planner Ian Brownlee
23. ProCommons Albert Lai
24. ProCommons George Cautherley
25. Surveyor Edward Yiu
26. Surveyor Roger Nissim
27. Land Justice League Leung Tak Ming
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