14 October

土地共享先導計劃 關於南生圍及社山兩宗申請的聯合聲明 Joint Statement from NGOs concerning Two Applications under the Land Sharing Pilot Scheme at Nam Sang Wai and She Shan

Click here for the English version

土地共享先導計劃
關於南生圍及社山兩宗申請的聯合聲明

1. 就最近兩宗在土地共享先導計劃(LSPS)下分別位於南生圍(LSPS-002 )及林村社山(LSPS-003 )的申請,我們希望藉此聯合聲明表達深切關注。該兩個申請地點現在主要為鄉郊環境所覆蓋及包圍,發展密度極低;而有關申請不但會為該兩處引入高樓大廈(LSPS-002:24至25層;LSPS-003:17至39層),更會帶來龐大人口(LSPS-002:10,487人;LSPS-003:33,937人)。簡而言之,我們認為這兩個項目實在難以理解,我們會在下文詳細闡述。

生態環境問題
2. LSPS-002的申請地點位處南生圍核心濕地的南面,而該地點本身也有魚塘及河道。事實上,此地點亦位於濕地緩衝區(WBA)內;顧名思義,WBA本來就是要為緩衝敏感及具國際重要性的后海灣濕地而設 。WBA亦為繁殖期的鷺鳥提供飛行通道,以進入濕地保育區(WCA)內的覓食地。我們因此非常關注擬議的高樓會影響WBA原應發揮的緩衝作用及繁殖鷺鳥。南生圍核心濕地及周邊河道是不少具高保育重要性的水鳥的生境(包括全球性受威脅的黑臉琵鷺 Platalea minor)。區內亦有一個具區域重要性的普通鸕鷀(Phalacrocorax carbo)冬季棲地。此外,這區亦為在內地及香港都極具保育關注的歐亞水獺(Lutra lutra)提供生境。上述動物基本上對人類活動都極度敏感。擬議的9棟住宅高達24至25層,不但明顯阻礙雀鳥飛行路線,也會產生各種如光害及噪音的影響,干擾四周相對低矮的環境。擬議發展所帶來的人口亦會令區內的人類干擾大增,影響上述生態敏感受體。

3. 社山的擬議發展(LSPS-003)估計可能會令整個林村谷的人口激增約1.75倍(2016年的中期人口統計顯示林村谷只有19,369人 )。現時,該區的建築主要為三層高的村屋。明顯地此項涉及樓高17至39層共28棟大廈 (未包非住用建築)的發展建議,必然會嚴重破壞區內景觀及影響生態。擬議發展地點及其周邊現存大量農地及河道,為不少依賴開闊原野的具保育價值鳥種提供覓食及棲息地,包括全球性極危的黃胸鵐(Emberiza aureola)及易危的硫磺鵐(Emberiza sulphurate)。此外,擬議發展項目與覆蓋社山風水林的社山具特殊科學價值地點(SSSI)的最短距離少於10米,而此SSSI為不少具保育價值的動植物(如櫟子青岡(Cyclobalanopsis blakei)、褐林鴞(Strix leptogrammica)、黑冠鳽(Gorsachius melanolophus)提供生境。受法例保護的寬藥青藤(Illigera celebica)生長在社山風水林的邊陲,此稀有植物亦為稀有蝴蝶燕鳳蝶(Lamproptera curius)幼蟲的寄主。此外,最新的研究亦表明道路人工照明會對周邊環境的昆蟲數量構成重大影響 (而光害也能嚴重影響其他動物)。故此,觀乎社山擬議發展的位置,高度及規模,令人無法不聯想到此發展會大大干擾該區的野生生物(如昆蟲、在夜間活躍的雀鳥及蝙蝠)。

4. 我們相信這兩個項目更可能會大大增加路殺及鳥撞風險,直接影響野生生物和當區生物多樣性。

規劃問題
5. 如上述,LSPS-002的申請地點位於WBA內,此區的發展受到城市規劃委員會(城規會)規劃指引編號12C的規管。擬議項目地點覆蓋一些魚塘及河道,相關計劃摘要內的圖則顯示,一段河道及部份魚塘面積會因為該發展而消失。城規會規劃指引編號12C指出,在考慮后海灣地區的發展建議時,會採用「不會有濕地淨減少」的原則。儘管申請人近日在報章聲稱會遵循有關原則 ,LSPS-002現時唯一公開的正式文件(即計劃摘要)中,卻未有詳細說明該擬議發展會如何遵守這個原則。

6. LSPS-003的申請地點及林村谷均為林村分區計劃大綱核准圖 所覆蓋。而該圖則的整體規劃意向如下:

該區的發展是以「全港發展策略檢討」和「新界東北發展策略檢討」的結果作為指引的。這兩項檢討都沒有選定該區為可作策略性增長的地區。當局就新界東北的長遠發展所制訂的整體規劃政策,着重保育和保護鄉郊腹地的天然環境和景觀,而除現有新市鎭人口和已承諾進行的市區式發展帶來的人口外,會盡量遏止該區的人口增長。現在和已承諾建設的運輸和基礎設施網絡,不足以承受該區截至二零一一年的額外人口增長。

鑑於新界東北的發展受到限制,以及有需要保育/保存該區的鄉郊特色、天然景觀和生態價值,當局不鼓勵在區內闢設露天貯物場或進行非正式的工業和住宅發展。因此,該區的規劃意向,一方面是透過管制區內的發展和促進農業活動,以保存其鄉郊特色;另一方面是在適合發展的地點容許鄉村擴展……

7. 綜觀上述內容及社山擬議項目的發展參數,我們認為有關計劃根本不符合林村谷的原規劃意向。

公眾參與及透明度問題
8. 關於LSPS的公眾參與及透明度問題,我們在相關文件看到下列敘述:

立法會參考資料摘要(土地共享先導計劃) (DEVB(PL-CR)1-55/127/1) :

……為建立信心及保障公眾利益,先導計劃會採用具透明度的機制,並由特 設的顧問小組提供第三方意見。所有相關法定程序,包括修訂法定圖則及授權進行公共道路/渠務工程等刊憲程序,以至現有這些法定程序所涉及的公眾參與渠道,將繼續適用……

……自二零一九年《施政報告》公布後,發展局就先導計劃的擬議框架諮詢了主要持份者,包括立法會發展事務委員會(事務委員會)、香港地產建設商會(地產商會)、土地及建設諮詢委員會、與發展相關的專業學會、鄉議局等。事務委員會亦於二零二零年一月召開會議聽取代表團體的意見。經考慮接獲的意見及政策目的,發展局建議,行政長官會同行政會議批准以下詳列的先導計劃細節,以予實施……

立法會發展事務委員會討論文件(LC Paper No. CB(1)160/19-20(03)) :

……為保持透明度,先導計劃的資料、接獲的申請及每宗申請的進度均會於不同階段向公眾發布。我們會公布接獲的申請細節,亦會在顧問小組就個別個案討論後公布小組的意見。現行法定規劃、環境、收地及/或工程授權程序下的既定公眾參與渠道將繼續適用……

9. 我們同意建立信心、保障公眾利益及保持透明度為LSPS的重要構成部分。可是,目前我們只能從計劃摘要得悉極少有關項目的資料,相關計劃摘要亦無附上任何有關項目潛在影響的評估。沒有進一步資料,公眾如何能適切地對這些位處於環境敏感地區的發展項目提供意見?

「先破壞,後發展」問題
10. 社山的申請地點曾經被嚴重破壞(傾倒泥頭),而亦因為這個個案,有關方面修訂了分區計劃大綱圖內農業地帶的註釋,以處理農業地帶的填土問題及加強規劃管制 。
11. 城規會亦曾公布 :

城規會決心保護鄉郊及天然環境,不會容忍任何蓄意破壞鄉郊及天然環境的行動,企圖使城規會對有關土地上的其後發展給予從寬考慮……

12. 我們希望各有關方面仔細考慮在此地點擬議發展任何大型項目是否恰當。

結論
13. LSPS有一個「最少新增房屋數量」準則,原意是為儘量增加每個申請的總樓面面積8。雖然這個試驗性策略或能在一些地方增加房屋供應,我們認為在某些錯誤地點以非常高聳及高密度的發展去達至LSPS的準則本身就是一個錯誤。LSPS的目的是協調發展過程,而非漠視政府一貫的發展措守及規範,對現有社群及敏感的生物多樣性,仍須一如既往地緊慎考量及妥善兼顧。

14. 現時有關這兩個項目的資訊非常少,直接影響討論的成效及事實基礎。儘管如此,憑我們現時手上的資料,我們認為南生圍及社山這兩處絕不適合發展如此「非常」的大型項目。由於現時的公開資料沒有包含任何詳細評估報告,我們不清楚擬議項目明顯會引致的潛在影響如何能夠得到處理。

15. 我們絕對明白弱勢社群對公營房屋的需求,但確實亦難以理解在偏遠鄉郊建屋能如何切合基層所需–上述兩個申請地點不但缺乏公共運輸系統等適切的基礎建設,更為敏感環境所包圍。我們亦要問,這些項目能如何維護無價的天然資源予後代共享?我們重申並強調,社會上眾多界別早已指出,香港仍有很多適合作公營房屋發展的土地資源,也有不少增加房屋供應的方法。

16. 綜觀以上資訊,及為了確保下一代的環境不會受到不可逆轉的破壞,我們不支持這兩個項目。

聯署團體(依筆劃序):

世界自然基金會香港分會
長春社
香港鄉郊基金
香港觀鳥會
創建香港
綠色力量
嘉道理農場暨植物園

 

Joint Statement from NGOs concerning Two Applications under the Land Sharing Pilot Scheme at Nam Sang Wai and She Shan

1. We would like to express our grave concern regarding two recent applications submitted under the Land Sharing Pilot Scheme (LSPS), one at Nam Sang Wai (LSPS-002) and the other at She Shan, Lam Tsuen (LSPS-003). At present, the two application sites and their surroundings are highly rural in nature with significantly low development density. The proposed developments, however, would introduce many high-rise blocks (LSPS-002: 24 to 25 storeys; LSPS-003: 17 to 39 storeys) and large populations (LSPS-002: 10,487; LSPS-003: 33,937) into these two places. Simply speaking, from various perspectives, we have found these two proposals to be completely incomprehensible; our detailed views are presented below.

 

Ecological issues

2. The application site of LSPS-002 is located to the south of the core wetland area of Nam Sang Wai, and the site itself also encompasses several fish ponds and a watercourse. Indeed, the site is well within the Wetland Buffer Area (WBA) which is primarily delineated to buffer the sensitive and internationally important Deep Bay wetlands. More importantly, WBA also serves as a flight path/corridor for breeding ardeids to access their foraging grounds within the Wetland Conservation Area (WCA). We are highly concerned that the proposed high-rise blocks would undermine the buffering function which the area is designated to provide, and would have adverse impacts on the breeding ardeids. The core Nam Sang Wai area as well as the channels surrounding the application site are habitats for many waterbird species of high conservation importance, including the globally threatened Black-faced Spoonbill (Platalea minor). It is also a winter roosting site for Great Cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), and is of regional importance. The area also provides habitats for the Eurasian Otter (Lutra lutra), which is of very high conservation concern in Hong Kong and mainland China. These species are in general highly sensitive to human activities. The proposed 9 high-rise blocks ranging from 24 to 25 storeys would become an obvious obstacle to bird flightpaths and impose various impacts such as light and noise disturbance on the relatively low-rise surroundings. The proposed increased population would also greatly increase human disturbance to the above mentioned ecological sensitive receivers in the region.

3. The proposed development at She Shan (LSPS-003) would greatly increase the population of Lam Tsuen Valley by a predicted 1.75 times (population of Lam Tsuen Valley is around 19,369 persons based on 2016 by-census). At present, there are mainly 3-storey village houses in this area. The proposed development, with 28 high-rise blocks (17 to 39 storeys each; not including those for non-residential uses), would completely destroy the landscape and also severely impact the ecology of the area. Within the application site and its surroundings, active and fallow farmlands as well as watercourses can be found; these habitats provide foraging and roosting grounds for various open country bird species of conservation importance (including globally Critically Endangered Yellow-breasted Bunting (Emberiza aureola), Vulnerable Japanese Yellow Bunting (Emberiza sulphurate)). Furthermore, the existing She Shan Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which is located less than 10 m from the proposed development boundary and largely covers the She Shan fung shui woodland (FSW), also provides habitats for many plants and fauna of conservation interest (e.g., Blake’s Oak (Cyclobalanopsis blakei), Brown Wood Owl (Strix leptogrammica), Malayan Night Heron (Gorsachius melanolophus)). The legally protected Illigera (Illigera celebica), which is a larval food plant for the rare butterfly – White Dragontail (Lamproptera curius), also inhabits the periphery of this FSW. A recent study has already indicated that street lighting would impose significant impacts on local insect populations (it has also been clearly demonstrated that street lighting can have serious impacts on other animal groups also). Thus it is not unreasonable to expect that the proposed development, in view of its scale, height and location, would greatly disturb local wildlife populations (e.g., insects, nocturnal birds, and bats).

4. We believe that both LSPS-002 and LSPS-003 would also significantly increase the wildlife road-kill occurrence and bird collisions in the areas of concern, thus imposing another direct impact on wildlife and the local biodiversity.

 

Planning issues

5. As aforementioned, the application site of LSPS-002 is within WBA, and development in this area is governed by the Town Planning Board (TPB) guidelines no. 12c3. The proposed development would cover some ponds and a watercourse. As shown in the plans attached to the application gist1, it seems that a section of the watercourse and also some pond areas would be lost. According to the TPB guidelines no. 12c, there is a ‘no-net-loss in wetlands’ principle in considering development proposals for the Deep Bay Area. Although the applicant claimed in a recent newspaper article that this principle will be followed, we cannot see, at present, from the only available official document of LSPS-002 (i.e., the gist) how the principle can be adequately upheld under the current development proposal.

6. The application site of LSPS-003 and Lam Tsuen Valley are covered under the Approved Lam Tsuen Outline Zoning Plan (OZP). The general planning intention section of this OZP states the following:

Development within the Area is guided by the Territorial Development Strategy Review (TDSR) and the North East New Territories Development Strategy Review (NENT DSR). According to the TDSR and the NENT DSR, the Area is not identified for strategic growth development. The general planning policies for the long-term development in NENT emphasize conservation and landscape protection of the rural hinterland with minimum population growth other than those accommodated in existing new towns and committed urban development. The existing and committed transport and infrastructural networks will not be capable of sustaining additional growth up to 2011.

In view of the development constraints in NENT and the need to conserve/preserve the rural character, the natural landscape and the ecological interest of the Area, it is intended not to encourage open storage uses, nor informal industrial development and residential development in the Area. The planning intention for the Area is, therefore, to retain the rural character of the Area by controlling development and promoting agricultural activities, and to allow village expansion in areas where development is considered appropriate……

7. Looking at the proposed development parameters at She Shan with reference to the above, we consider that the current proposal is simply contrary to the original planning intention of Lam Tsuen Valley.

 

Public engagement and transparency issues

8. Regarding the issue of public engagement and transparency of LSPS, we can see from various relevant documents the following:

Legislative Council Brief for LSPS(DEVB(PL-CR)1-55/127/1):

 ……LSPS strives to build confidence and safeguard public interest, with transparent mechanism involving third-party opinion offered by the Panel of Advisors to be set up specifically for LSPS. All relevant statutory procedures on town planning and road/sewerage works gazettal, as well as the existing public participation channels under these processes, would continue to apply……

……Development Bureau (DEVB) has since the 2019 PA engaged key stakeholders including the Legislative Council (LegCo) Panel on Development, the Real Estate Developers Association of Hong Kong (REDA), the Land and Development Advisory Committee (LDAC), development-related professional institutes, Heung Yee Kuk (HYK), etc. on the proposed framework. The LegCo Panel on Development also convened meeting to receive views from deputations in January 2020……

Legislative Council Panel on Development Discussion Paper (LC Paper No. CB(1)160/19-20(03)):

……To uphold transparency, information on LSPS, applications received and progress of each case would be released to the public at different stages. We would publish details of the applications upon receipt and opinions of the Panel of Advisors on individual cases after its deliberation. The existing public participation channels under various statutory procedures in the planning, environment, land resumption and/or works authorisation regimes, etc. would continue as applicable……

9. We agree that building confidence, safeguarding public interest and upholding transparency are all important components of LSPS as claimed. However, at present we could only find extremely limited information regarding the proposals (i.e., from the gists only) and could not find any detailed technical assessments relating to the potential impacts of the proposal. Without further information, how can the public comment appropriately on the proposals in such environmentally sensitive areas?

 

‘Destroy First, Build Later’ issue

10. Some may remember that a case was raised previously as the application site at She Shan was impacted by serious environmental destruction (i.e., land filling), and the ‘Notes for Agriculture (AGR) zone’ on Outline Zoning Plans were even revised as a result of this case to tackle the problem of filling on AGR-zoned land and to strengthen planning control.

11. The TPB has also announced that:

The Board is determined to conserve the rural and natural environment and will not tolerate any deliberate action to destroy the rural and natural environment in the hope that the Board would give sympathetic consideration to subsequent development on the site concerned……

12. We urge all relevant parties to thoroughly consider whether it is still appropriate to propose any large-scale development at the She Shan site.

 

Conclusion

13. Under the LSPS there is a criterion called ‘Minimum Housing Gain’; its ultimate aim is to boost the gross floor area of each application8. While this experimental approach may increase housing supply in some places, we consider that applications with extraordinary high rise and high density development parameters should never appear in totally unsuitable locations, which is an incorrect way to achieve the LSPS criteria. The LSPS is not designed to over-ride all previous Government measures and controls on development but to facilitate a process which still requires careful and fair consideration for the existing communities and sensitive biodiversity.

14. Although the very limited information now available regarding the captioned proposals makes fruitful or fact-based discussion very difficult, our conclusion, based on the information we have in hand, is that the captioned localities, Nam Sang Wai and She Shan, are definitely not suitable for developments of such ‘extraordinary’ scale. We also cannot comprehend how the clear potential impacts that would be caused by the proposed developments can be addressed, as detailed assessment reports are lacking from the available information.

15. While we fully understand the public housing need of the underprivileged community in Hong Kong, it is unclear how building houses in fairly remote, rural locations is helpful to the immediate needs, given that they are lacking of basic infrastructures (e.g., adequate public transportation system), and have sensitive surroundings. It is also uncertain how such development can help to sustain the invaluable natural resources for our future generations. We would like to reiterate and emphasise that there are still many suitable land resources for public housing development and many options to increase housing supply, which have already been repeatedly pointed out by various sectors in the society.

16. In view of the above and in order to ensure that the environment for future generations is not to be impacted irreversibly, we, the signatories below, wish to make it clear that we do not support the two captioned proposals.

 

Co-organised groups (in alphabetical order):

The Conservancy Association
Designing Hong Kong
Green Power
Hong Kong Bird Watching Society
The Hong Kong Countryside Foundation
Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden
World Wide Fund For Nature Hong Kong

17 August

[新聞稿 Press Release] 2025年須全面禁膠餐具 切勿「走塑」變「走數」 10環團籲公眾提交意見書 Ban Single-use Plastic Tableware by 2025

[Text only available in Chinese]

2025年須全面禁膠餐具 切勿「走塑」變「走數」 10環團籲公眾提交意見書

20210816-RDPT-PC-03 -credit

(2021年8月16日 新聞稿) 10個環團今日聯合發佈《堂食及外賣即棄餐具派發量調查》(下稱調查)及《「外賣走塑」研究》(下稱民調)的研究結果,前者推算出快餐店年派過5億件即棄膠餐具,當中有過半仍未納入政府早前推出的「管制即棄餐具計劃」[1]的第一階段,受規管的日子遙遙無期,恐「走塑」變「走數」;另外,民調結果則指出,市民大多同意政府規定食肆不能向顧客免費提供即棄塑膠餐具,評分高達5.21分(7分為非常同意)。

10個環團認為,市民對政府實施走塑措施的訴求日漸增強,但政府早前推出的「管制即棄餐具計劃」未能解決當前嚴重的塑膠污染,促當局須於2025年前實施管制所有堂食及外賣塑膠即棄餐具,並呼籲市民於9月8日前踴躍向當局提交意見。

環團調查員本月初於4間大型連鎖快餐店,計算其早、午、晚市時段的堂食及外賣即棄餐具數目,推算出一年至少派5億件即棄膠餐具,數字十分驚人。但政府的計劃第一階段管制的膠刀叉等,只佔四成多;不包括在第一階段的如膠蓋、食物容器及膠杯,多達逾2億7千萬件,但仍未有具體受管制的時間表。香港塑膠污染已逼在眉睫,政府必須2025年前一併規管所有即棄塑膠餐具,才可有效減廢。

此外,環團與香港中文大學地理與資源管理學系副教授伍世良,在今年2月4日到5月11日,以網上問卷調查,訪問336名過去一年有購買外賣的市民,了解其對外賣走塑的意見,包括政府應否管制外賣即棄餐具、外賣習慣及走塑意願等。

調查結果發現,對於政府規定食肆不能向顧客免費提供即棄塑膠餐具,受訪者的評分高達5.21分(以7分為非常同意),反映市民普遍支持政府進行管制;逾半受訪者(56.8%)經常外賣主動走塑,但47%受訪者表示餐廳沒有經常配合,可見若欠缺政府規管,難全面推動香港餐廳外賣走塑。伍世良教授指出:「問卷反映逾半市民雖在疫市嘗試走塑,但餐廳未有配合的話,孤掌難鳴。既然市民普遍支持管制外賣即棄餐具,政府宜加快立法步伐,回應疫下外賣膠災。」

除了社會各界的走塑意識日漸提升,環團強調國際間早已立法限塑,政策均有確實時間表與分段目標,同時推動可重用措施以達至源頭減廢的初衷。但政府的是次計劃,由諮詢到推行首階段措施竟耗時4年,第二階段的落實時間更是遙遙無期,步伐十分緩慢,無法解決嚴峻的塑膠污染問題。

10個環團重申,政府必須於2025年前全面管制即棄塑膠餐具,刻不容緩。同時促當局要積極推動可重用餐具模式,禁止可降解餐具成替代品,訂立清晰時間表及各階段目標,以免令其他即棄餐具(如:紙、竹)的垃圾量倍增,才可達至真正源頭減廢。

 

[1]「管制即棄餐具計劃」諮詢文件建議的計劃分兩階段,第一階段2025年後方落實,以管制堂食即棄膠餐具、發泡膠餐具、外賣膠刀叉及飲管,而第二階段則會管制外賣的膠蓋、食物容器及膠杯等,但並沒有確實執行的時間表。

 

附表一:《堂食及外賣即棄餐具派發量調查》

4大連鎖快餐店調查 數據 (百分比或數目)
推算一年即棄膠餐具派發量 至少5億件
即棄膠餐具數量 – 堂食 26.9%
即棄膠餐具 – 外賣(第一階段) 21.1%
即棄膠餐具 – 外賣(第二階段) 51.9%

 

附表二:《「外賣走塑」研究數據》

問題 百分比 或 分數
在購買外賣時,您會否主動省去塑膠餐具? 56.8% 經常會
當你選擇外賣走塑膠餐具後,領取食物時,塑膠餐具是否已被省去? 47% 不會經常省去
政府應規定食肆不能向顧客免費提供即棄塑膠餐具 5.21分(7分為滿分)
我傾向光顧走塑或提供可重用餐具的餐廳 5.5分(7分為滿分)

 

聯署環團:(按筆劃順序)

世界自然基金會香港分會
長春社
創建香港
喜動社區
綠色力量
綠色和平
綠惜地球
綠領行動
環保觸覺
EcoDrive

傳媒聯絡

綠色和平項目主任 譚穎琳 綠色和平媒體與推廣主任 陳妍妍
電話: 2854 8337 / 9745 9080 電話: 2854 8376 / 6922 9929
電郵: [email protected] 電郵: [email protected]

 

21 December

Event: Rediscovering and Mapping the Coastal Trail for HK Island 社區活動:共同繪製港島環島遊指南

Event: Rediscovering and Mapping the Coastal Trail for HK Island 活動推介:共同繪製港島環島遊指南

Event: Rediscovering and Mapping the Coastal Trail for HK Island
活動推介:共同繪製港島環島遊指南

Together with Trailwatch, i-Discover and Dutch Chamber, you are invited to take part in the mapping event from 21st December – 18th January. Join any time, at your own convenience.
EVENT DETAILS:

The mapping event will run from 21st December – 18th January. You can take part at any time, at your own convenience.

  • The 65km trail is divided into 8 sections, from easy to moderate in difficulty. There’s something for everyone, from steep remote mountain climbs to flat urban harbourside walks. If you’re feeling like you want a challenge, you can run or walk the entire trail in one go, or if you want some leisurely walks, you can split up your journey into sections over several days.
  • When you sign up, you will receive an e-mail with detailed instructions for each section. You simply print the set for your preferred section, pack some water and snacks and be on your way! The TrailWatch app will help you navigate on the way.
  • Along the trail are over 70 Points of Interest. Places with a story to tell. We ask you to stop, take a breather, have a wander. Share with us your pictures, observations and conversations (English or Chinese) through the TrailWatch App, What’sApp or e-mail. We’ll collect the most compelling narratives and photographs and put them on an illustrated map.
  • End of January we’ll publish Hong Kong’s first community-created Hong Kong Island Coastal Trail Walking Map
  • Each participating team will get a pack with 12 Hong Kong neighbourhood walks as a souvenir and prizes for teams with most original entries!!

Hong Kong Island Coastal Trail Challenge: https://dutchchamhk.glueup.com/event/mapping-the-hong-kong-island-coastal-trail-30453/
Register our event: https://dutchchamhk.glueup.com/event/30453/register/
8 recommended section: https://www.coastaltrail.hk/hkict-route.html
Download TrailWatch: https://apps.apple.com/hk/app/trailwatch-your-hiking-guide/id791098937?l=en
Submission to [email protected]
#hkcoastaltrail
#explorehiddengems
#keepheritagealive
#walkability
#getlostwithoutgettinglost
#hkict

8 sectionsinstructiongiftprizes

創建香港與Trailwatch徑‧香港、i-Discover和香港荷蘭商會合作,在12月21日至1月18日期間進行一個「虛擬」的社區活動,希望透過市民的參與,一同建立一份屬於香港人的環島徑地圖。
參加者隨時隨地都可以參與活動。只需要透過Trailwatch手機應用程式、Whatsapp、Facebook、Instagram或Email告訴我們途中的所見所聞,並配合圖片。收集到大家的故事後我們會選出最佳的圖片和故事,將它們加入到我們的網上地圖上。我們亦會整合大家的故事,邀請本地設計師製作一份瓖島社區指南。

經香港荷蘭商會網頁報名的參加者可獲得iDiscover早前設計的社區地圖作為紀念品。另外我們亦會選出最優秀的故事,將會額外的獎品送贈予該參加者。

步行 . 港島環島徑長65公里,共分為8段;有合家歡的海傍步行徑,亦有較進階的攀岩及行山徑,適合不同年齡層與體力的人士參與。喜愛挑戰的人士可以嘗試以步行或緩步跑方式一氣完成全程,你亦可以在不同日子,不同時段漫步所選的分段路徑。
紀錄 . 透過Google Play或the App Store下載Trailwatch手機應用程式,並選擇港島環島徑路段以即時展開導航功能,紀錄活動情況及上傳沿路拍攝的照片。
探索 . 跟隨路徑上的指引,尋找景點背後的故事,發掘城市更多有趣的面貌。
分享 . 這些景點背後有什麼故事?有什麼值得到訪的理由?對你而言又有什麼意義?透過以下社交平台,與我們分享你沿途的所想,所見,所聞 – 可以是你的個人回憶,難忘的經歷,很棒的照片,甚至是路途上展開的有趣對話(中英皆可)

網上登記: https://dutchchamhk.glueup.com/event/mapping-the-hong-kong-island-coastal-trail-30453/

gift

9 November

The battle for country parks is not yet won郊野公園的抗爭仍長路漫漫

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

The battle for country parks is not yet won

Afforestation was an urgent task after the war. The Colony was almost entirely deforested. As vegetation became denser the need to arrest fires and litter grew. So also did the voices for nature conservation, public education and recreation in the forests.

The call to establish a ‘national parks’ scheme was answered by colonial governor Murray MacLehose in 1974, with one newspaper reporting the installation of ‘150 tables for picnickers, 135 benches, 110 barbecue pits and 600 litter bins.’ The Country Parks Ordinance was enacted in 1976 and the Country Parks Regulations in 1977. MacLehose was in a hurry: ‘In four years’ time, there will be about 20 parks covering all the open countryside.’

To expedite the designation, some 77 enclaves of private land inside the parks were excluded from the legislation. Most elderly continued subsistence farming in these small and remote villages for some years while their offspring left for factories in Kwun Tong and Tsuen Wan or went overseas.

Access was mostly on foot or by sampan. The few accessible villages close to Sai Kung developed with small houses under the 1972 policy. They became a popular choice for expats including retirees and pilots (before Kai Tak closed). Fast forward, in 1992 the Sha Lo Tung judicial review stopped a golf course development in this enclave famous for butterfly colonies. A six-year long campaign started in 2000 to hold off the creation of a zone for 370 houses at the Tai Long Wan beach enclave.

Sporadic unauthorised development at enclaves culminated in condemnation when the government failed to act on extensive land clearing behind the beach of Tai Long Sai Wan in the summer of 2010. The public demanded protection of the country parks and strengthening of development control. Recognising the enclaves as part of the country parks would put development under the strict Country Park Regulations Ordinance. Land owners, egged on by the Heung Yee Kuk, objected aggressively.

In 2014, the Government excluded their own advisors, the Country and Marine Parks Board, from its decision not to incorporate the village enclaves Hoi Ha, Pak Lap, So Lo Pun, To Kwa Peng, Pak Tam Au and Tin Fu Tsai into Country Parks.

Government did not go further than zoning the enclaves under the Town Planning Ordinance. This offers minimal protection. It does not provide for management or adequate enforcement powers.

On 12 October this year, the Court of Final Appeal ruled otherwise – the Save Our Country Parks Alliance won. The Government is ordered to go back to the Country and Marine Parks Board. Question is now – will they stop the rot and take control over the enclaves? The battle to protect our country parks has yet to be won.

(Based on ‘The battle for country parks is not yet won’ by Paul Zimmerman published in Southside Magazine, 1 November 2020)

郊野公園的抗爭仍長路漫漫

戰後初時,殖民地的植被頓成廢墟,植樹成為一時之急。當森林郊區回復原貌,樹木長回茂盛,撲滅山火的需要以及山野垃圾的數量卻與日俱增,郊區保育、康樂活動及公民教育的聲音亦隨之出現。

1974 年,時任港督麥理浩回應訴求,設立類似「國家公園」的規劃大綱,同期亦有報章報導在郊野公園為行山客安裝 150 張枱、135 長櫈、110 個燒烤爐及 600 個垃圾桶的消息。郊野公園條例及郊野公園規例分別在 1976 年及 1977 年通過立法,而麥對此顯然感到不足,並指出在四年內將會有約20個郊野公園遍布郊區。

為加快立法進度,約 77 個位於郊野公園範圍內,屬私人擁有的「不包括土地」獲得豁免。這些土地擁有者中多為長者,他們把這些土地發展成村落並繼續耕作,其子嗣則選擇到城市的工廠尋找工作機會,或到海外發展。這些村落大多只能步行前往,或以舢舨進入。其中小數如西貢等則因 1972 年的政策發展成丁屋群,在啟德停用前,它們是外籍退休人士及機師的熱門居住地方。

1992 年的沙螺洞司法覆核案阻止在這個蝴蝶棲息地興建高爾夫球場,在 2000 年開展的長達六年的抗爭亦成功否決在大浪灣沙灘周邊的「不包括土地」興建 370 間房屋的計劃。然而,2010 年夏天,政府對大浪西灣沙灘後方的土地清理行為視而不見,零星的違例發展達至高峰。社會大眾要求保護郊野公園,並進一步管制發展開發行為,其一方向就是藉把「不包括土地」納入郊野公園範圍,實施嚴格的發展要求限制。作為地主之一,視鄉郊土地為金蛋的鄉議局,想當然作出強烈反對。

2014 年,政府於未有依法諮詢郊野公園委員會的情況下選擇不把海下、白腊、鎖羅盆、土瓜坪、北潭凹及田夫仔等鄉郊的「不包括土地」納入郊野公園範圍。這顯然未能充分保護「不包括土地」,亦未能為管理及執法提供足夠權力。

今年 10 月 12 日,終審法院判決保衛郊野公園大聯盟勝訴,政府需回到郊野公園及海岸公園委員會重新審視決定。問題是,政府會否下定決心奪回「不包括土地」的掌控權?保護郊野公園的抗爭尚未成功,同志們仍須努力。

19 October

Trash Talk- waste charging scheme 電台訪問:垃圾徵費條例

Paul Zimmerman: ‘… recycling materials are not high value but they are high cost once they get into the waste system. The landfills are full. Do we need new landfill? If yes, then where is the land? Is it going to be country parks? People don’t realize waste charging has lots of implications …’

司馬文:回收物的價值不高,但它們一旦進入廢物鏈或堆填區,它們的成本卻很高。堆填區快將滿。我們需要新的堆填區嗎?如果是,那土地來源哪裏來?是郊野公園嗎?很多人沒有意識到垃圾徵費其實隱含着極大的意義……

https://podcast.rthk.hk/podcast/item.php?pid=1432&lang=zh-CN
trash talk

Support waste charging and improve municipal solid waste management

Please join our Petition: https://www.supporthk.org/?petition=lets-improve-our-municipal-solid-waste-management&lang=en

徵費、源頭分類、回收
三大元素,決一不可

要有效解決每日人均垃圾棄置量,請聯署支持垃圾徵費

https://www.supporthk.org/?petition=%E6%94%B9%E5%96%84%E9%83%BD%E5%B8%82%E5%9B%BA%E9%AB%94%E5%BB%A2%E7%89%A9%E7%AE%A1%E7%90%86

18 October

Support waste charging and improve municipal solid waste management 支持修訂垃圾徵費條例草案,改善城市固體廢物管理

https://www.supporthk.org/?petition=lets-improve-our-municipal-solid-waste-management&lang=en
Waste Levy, Source Separation, Recycling – 3 elements, not one less.

We urge the Government to consider the suggested key actions in 2020 Policy Address with the aims of improving and support the municipal solid waste management and recycling in Hong Kong.

Please sign our petition so we can reduce the volume of daily disposal of garbage.

徵費、源頭分類、回收
三大元素,決一不可

我們敦促政府通過廢物回收和公眾教育,支持修訂垃圾徵費條例草案,改善城市固體廢物管理。

要有效解決每日人均垃圾棄置量,請支持聯署

區議員聯署:https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdfolxAs44alWP0_dRCEAg_HS9gLB5s9MJA_sMXHDLqYr0LkA/viewform

16 October

聯署支持修訂垃圾徵費條例草案,改善都市固體廢物管理 Let’s approve municipal solid waste charging

徵費、源頭分類、回收
三大元素,決一不可

議員聯署https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdfolxAs44alWP0_dRCEAg_HS9gLB5s9MJA_sMXHDLqYr0LkA/viewform
公眾聯署https://www.supporthk.org/?petition=%E6%94%B9%E5%96%84%E9%83%BD%E5%B8%82%E5%9B%BA%E9%AB%94%E5%BB%A2%E7%89%A9%E7%AE%A1%E7%90%86

3elementsWhatsApp Image 2020-10-16 at 3.53.22 PM
政府曾在2013年制定目標,務求「在2022年將每日人均垃圾棄置量減至0.8公斤」。然而,垃圾棄置量不跌反升,更在2018年創新紀錄,每日人均垃圾棄置量達到1.53公斤。現有的回收計劃無法提高回收量,例如PET膠樽的出口回收率從8.5%(2016)大幅降至0.23%(2018)。三個戰略性堆填區面臨巨大壓力,並快將於2020年代末飽和。如果再不採取行動減少都市固體廢物,我們可能只靠覓地,以容納更多焚化爐或興建第四個堆填區,甚至犧牲郊野公園土地。屆時,我們需要作出更具政治敏感的決策。

垃圾徵費是政府回收塑膠和廚餘等廢物的相關政策的關鍵。回收、源頭分類和徵費是解決都市固體廢物的三大重要元素,決一不可。對比其他司法管轄區,香港的垃圾管理已大大落後。以往很多相關政策措施都是空談。延遲推出垃圾徵費將帶來不可想像的後果。如果垃圾徵費未能在來年施政處理,則只能在3-5年後重提。都市固體廢物將無法重大改善。

為改善香港的都市固體廢物管理,政府需採取以下的策略:
1. 應用策略於每種香港都市固體廢物 (立法會資料研究組,2019年): 廚餘 (34%)、廢紙 (24%)、塑膠垃圾 (20%) 和其他垃圾 (23%);
2. 應用「污者自付」、「源頭分類」 和 「生產者責任計劃」三大政策工具及理念,以解決都市固體廢物問題;
3. 每年撥款約8 至10 億元支持本地回收業,推動不同的減廢及回收措施;
4. 把垃圾徵費所得的資金用於本地回收業,達至可持續發展;

在採取垃圾徵費同時,創建香港建議以下廚餘和塑膠回收的相關措施:

立法規管和增加設施,以支持回收和廢物管理:
1. 將廚餘回收網絡擴展至全港18個區的食環署垃圾收集站和公屋;
2. 向各區私人屋苑提供資源、經濟誘因和定期維修服務,並為承辦商員工提供培訓,以達至可持續廚餘回收;
3. 投資廚餘回收技術,為回收業創造更多職位空缺,例如物流運輸和技術支援;
4. 提升公民減廢意識,教育公眾分類廚餘;

塑膠回收
1. 擴展「塑膠可回收物料回收服務先導計劃」至全港18區,推動公眾進行回收;
2. 就即棄膠樽實施生產者責任制;
3. 檢管即棄餐具;
4. 禁止在個人護理產品中使用微塑膠;
5. 禁止使用發泡膠盒;
6. 檢管食品過度包裝;
7. 檢視現有的公共飲水機的衛生情況,務求在肺炎疫情下,巿民能安心使用飲水機,並建立公共飲水機網絡。

WhatsApp Image 2020-10-16 at 3.52.36 PMlandfill is full

Let’s approve municipal solid waste charging

Waste Levy, Source Separation, Recycling – 3 elements, not one less
DC/LC member petition:  https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdfolxAs44alWP0_dRCEAg_HS9gLB5s9MJA_sMXHDLqYr0LkA/viewform

Public Petition:   https://www.supporthk.org/?petition=lets-improve-our-municipal-solid-waste-management&lang=en

Background

In 2013, the government set the goal of ‘reducing the volume of daily disposal of garbage per capita to 0.8 kg in 2022’. Yet, per capita daily disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW) continues to increase every year. A record high of 1.53kg was reached in 2018. Under the current programs, recycling fails to improve. For example the export recycling rate of PET bottles fell from 8.5% (2016) to 0.23% (2018). Our three strategic landfills are under pressure and are about to saturate this decade. If nothing more is done to reduce MSW, we may have to explore new sites for incinerators or landfills. This would likely impact our country parks. Once the landfills are full, it will be politically difficult to stop this from happening.

The MSW Bill enabling charging is the linchpin in government’s waste policy and projects. Waste levies are important in promoting source separation of domestic waste and the successful expansion of our recycling capacity. Without waste charging, the separation and reduction of waste and the recovery of useful materials for recycling will fail. Hong Kong’s waste reduction management is already lagging behind other jurisdictions. Many policy initiatives have turned into broken promises. The delay of the waste charging bill will make it ever more difficult to achieve high levels of recycling. If the Bill is not dealt with within this term of government, the Bill will be delayed by 3-5 years. This unacceptable.

 

Improving Hong Kong’s municipal solid waste management requires key actions in the Policy Address:

  1. Strategies to address all types of municipal solid waste in Hong Kong (LegCo research paper, 2019): food waste (34%), paper waste (24%), plastic waste (20%) and others (23%);
  2. Reconfirm the principles: Polluters Pay, Source Separation of Waste, and Producers’ Responsibility;
  3. Allocate HKD 800-1000 million for waste reduction and recycling; and
  4. Apply the funds generated from waste charging in support of the recycling industry.

 

Implement legislation, regulations and infrastructure in support of recycling and waste management:

  1. Extend the collection network of food waste collection across 18 districts, to all FEHD Refuse Collection Point and public housing estates;
  2. Allocate resources and financial incentives for maintenance and contractor staff training for food waste collection in all private housing estates;
  3. Invest in food waste technology and create more jobs in recycling industry, e.g. logistic and technical support for food waste collection services;
  4. Educate the public on waste reduction and separation of food waste.

 

Plastic waste recycling

  1. Extend the pilot schemes of plastic collection to all 18 districts to provide convenience to the public;
  2. Implement the producer responsibility system for beverage (disposable) containers;
  3. Retrofit and expand public water dispensers for hygienic and COVID-proof bottle refilling;
  4. Regulate disposable tableware;
  5. Regulation of excessive packaging of food products;
  6. Ban the use of styrofoam and microplastic in personal care products
6 October

Topside development on XRL – Survey Result

no height relaxation

We conducted a public opinion survey between September 28th to October 6th regarding the captioned application. 143 people submitted their responses.

The majority of the respondents objected expressing concerns over the relaxation of building height restrictions, deteriorating air ventilation, urban heat island effect, daylight access and visual intrusion.

By Friday Oct 9, please submit your comments to Town Planning Board at https://www.info.gov.hk/tpb/tc/plan_application/A_K20_133.html

廣深港高速鐵路西九龍總站用地

擬議辦公室、商業及零售發展並放寬建築物高度限制 (申請編號: A/K20/133)

9月28日至10月6日我們就以上題目,進行了公眾諮詢,並共有143人提交了回覆。

大部分受訪者表示反對放寬建築物高度限制,擔心會令空氣不流通,加劇城市熱島效應,影響日光和視覺效果。

請在10月9日之前向城市規劃委員會發表意見,或加入條件限制。你的意見可能會影響最終建築設計,從而改善社區發展。

  1. 62.94% of the respondents objected to the reflective exterior glass surface as it creates a glare which impairs the enjoyment of neighboring residents including particularly The Waterfront and The Austin. The glare may also impact nearby traffic. Solar reflections also raise temperatures and may impact vegetation nearby. Concerns were expressed over energy consumption for air-conditioning. The design is deemed does not match with the surrounding buildings.
  1. 71.33% of respondents are concerned over traffic impacts along Nga Cheung Road, Jordan Road and Canton Road. The proposed scheme proposed no less than 550 parking spaces for private cars. With the increase in parking spaces here and the car park at To Wah Road together with other developments in the area as well as new road connections such as the Central Kowloon Route, it is unclear whether the traffic burden exceeds capacity. Traffic congestion (and associated blaring of car horns) is experienced often in the area including along Jordan Road.
  1. 70.63% of respondents are concerned over the relaxation of building heights and the close distance between The Waterfront and XRL topside development. Such building structure would disturb daylight access, visual quality and air ventilation to inner area in Jordan.
  1. 76.22% of people object to relaxing height limit as this will set a bad precedent for nearby sites including future buildings at the WKCD. This application will set a precedent for others to change height restrictions. Respondents wonder if there is any justification of relaxing height limit after developers won bids for a site. Moreover, there is no compensation for the losses suffered by nearby residents. The gain would be simply for the developer at the cost of the neighbours.
  1. Although it is claimed that the proposed design has better air ventilation than the original scheme, 71.33% of respondents are concerned over the impact of having less fresh air and that pollutants residue in the community. It must be noted that the developer has failed to meet and consult the neighbours on the proposed plans.
  1. 49.65% of the respondents are worried over food and beverage related noise control at site, and the absence of clear operating guidelines on the use of facilities and time control of activities at the catering and commercial facilities (64.34%).
  1. 81.82% of the respondents are concerning over delivery of the promised public space. The promised public spaces are absent from the land lease conditions and may not be delivered. As seen throughout Hong Kong, what is promised in terms of public gains including public space, accessibility, public recreation, alfresco dining, etc, fails to be delivered. What controls will be applied by the Town Planning Board to ensure promised made are delivered?
  1. 86.71% of the respondents are upset with the lack of consultation and the failure to present and discuss the plans with nearby residents. Residents received insufficient information regarding the revised plans. Public consultation should have been conducted to provide clear information and to gain a better understanding. Moreover, the developer should introduce and discuss the proposal with the District Council before the deadline for comments under the Town Planning Ordinance for the captioned application.
  1. In the survey conducted, there is a demand for assessment of sustainability performance in terms of creating a ‘public realm’ which delivers a holistic and positive impact for occupants and neighbours. Reference is made to HKGBC BEAM Plus Neighborhood. More than 70% of respondents suggest civic spaces to be used by non-profit organizations for community activities (76.92%), promoting gender equality by introducing ‘Gender Mainstreaming checklist’ into the design and construction of the development (70.63%), and by adopting pet-friendly (78.32%) and bicycle-friendly measures (77.62%) for the site as well as the connections with the West Kowloon Cultural District to Jordan, Yau Ma Tei and Tai Kwok Tsui.
  2. 93.01% of respondents support environmental protection initiatives, such as energy saving, water use and reuse, using recyclable building materials, installing waste management and treatment facilities, etc. To implement initiatives to improve energy efficiency, environmental performance and achieving Government’s energy saving plan by 2025, all new development should have set goal to achieve HKGBC Beam Plus.
21 May

16個團體建議1,120公頃紅花嶺郊野公園 保護當地重要資源 16 groups jointly propose a 1,120-hectare Country Park to protect the important resources at the Robin’s Nest area

26_PC_Photo 02

16個團體就紅花嶺郊野公園的期望發表聯合聲明,敦促漁農自然護理署盡快成立郊野公園,保育具高生態、歷史、文化及景觀價值的地點,為香港及內地之間提供陸地生態走廊。團體建議的紅花嶺郊野公園範圍佔地1,120公頃,當中超過百分之九十五為政府土地。

政府早已認同保育紅花嶺郊野公園帶來的保育重要性。長春社公共事務經理吳希文指﹕「1993年及2008年,規劃署的『全港發展策略檢討』及『邊境禁區土地規劃研究』分別已建議成立紅花嶺郊野公園。政府在2017年施政報告承諾成立紅花嶺郊野公園,環境局局長黃錦星亦於2018年表明制訂紅花嶺郊野公園的工作正在進行中。紅花嶺的保育價值早已獲得確認,因此政府不應拖延該工作。」

團體認為郊野公園能為紅花嶺及毗鄰地區的重要生態資源提供最適合的保護及管理。香港觀鳥會高級保育主任胡明川解釋﹕「由山咀經新桂田一直延伸至蓮麻坑的紅花嶺北坡,保存著一大片非常完整的次生林,此片樹林及穿插其中的天然溪澗,孕育出眾多原生動植物。這一帶更有兩個具特殊科學價值地點,為本地分佈極窄的斯氏波魚及本港其中一個最重要的蝙蝠羣棲息地。全球易危的大草鶯在香港的族群對其全球數量有舉足輕重的影響,而紅花嶺的高地草原正正是其重要的生境,範圍由紅花嶺南面一直延伸至香園圍及禾徑山,而蓮麻坑及萬屋邊一帶的低地草原也是其潛在渡冬點。紅花嶺南麓也保存著不少由成熟樹木組成的風水林。」

紅花嶺被視為是內地與香港之間現存唯一的陸地生態走廊。其北面的完整次生林與深圳梧桐山國家森林公園有良好的生態連貫性,而南面的樹林及少受干擾的植被在生態上亦與八仙嶺郊野公園連結。綠色力量總監鄭睦奇博士指﹕「這為內地與香港的野生動物,如陸鳥、兩棲類、爬行類以及小型哺乳類等,提供重要的遷徙廊道。故此,紅花嶺的生境必須予以充分保護,以維持兩地的生態連貫性,令野生物種種群能正常交流並健康發展。」

紅花嶺一帶的古蹟具有不同的歷史價值。吳希文指﹕「紅花嶺是本地歷史文化遺產的一部分。位於伯公坳及礦山的二級歷史建築『麥景陶碉堡』,展現昔日其邊防及控制非法移民的角色;散落於紅花嶺四周的破舊設施、機槍堡等,相信是二十世紀興建作防衛用途;蓮麻坑的鉛礦遺址及相關建築,也是香港礦業史的最佳見證。此外,根據規劃署2003年的『香港具景觀價值地點研究』,紅花嶺亦被評為具高景觀價值。」

紅花嶺不單成為附近居民消閒晨運的去處,邊境禁區開放後亦逐漸受遠足郊遊人士及團體歡迎。創建香港行政總裁司馬文指﹕「這些活動反映該區的康樂價值,亦正正顯示制定紅花嶺郊野公園的逼切性,使政府可以提供最適切的保護及管理,以服務郊遊人士及防止人為破壞。《郊野公園條例》比《城市規劃條例》更能有效保育紅花嶺,相關部門能積極管理具保育價值的生境及作恆常巡查。郊野公園內一些生態及景觀重要性較低的地方,可為遊客提供遠足徑、教育及康樂設施,並由有豐富相關經驗的部門設計、管理及維修。使用率低的認可殯葬區及零散現存墓地也可納入郊野公園範圍,透過園內更有效的管制措施防止山火發生及蔓延。」

團體強烈要求漁農自然護理署考慮建議,並根據「指定郊野公園的原則及準則(2011)」擬定紅花嶺郊野公園的界線。根據該原則及準則,保育價值、康樂發展潛力、景觀及美觀價值為制定郊野公園的三大重要元素及固有準則,即使某地點包含私人土地,當局也不可機械式地視之為不把該地點納入郊野公園的決定性因素。為了對這些地方作更有效的保護與管理,上述眾多具高生態及人文歷史保育價值、景觀價值及康樂發展潛力的地點,應該成為紅花嶺郊野公園的一部分。

六個發起團體(排名不分先後)﹕
長春社、創建香港、綠色力量、香港觀鳥會、香港鄉郊基金、嘉道理農場暨植物園

支持團體(排名不分先後)﹕
香港地貌岩石保育協會、香港大學學生會理學會生態學及生物多樣性學會、香港地球之友、海下之友有限公司、綠領行動、綠色和平、環保觸覺、Hong Kong Outdoors、島嶼活力行動、西貢護牛天使

16 groups have jointly announced a joint statement on the expectations on the upcoming designation of Robin’s Nest Country Park (RNCP). The groups urge Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) to conserve areas of high ecological, historical, cultural, landscape conservation significance under the Country Park system as soon as possible, and to protect and strengthen the important terrestrial ecological corridor between Hong Kong and mainland China. A RNCP boundary was proposed for the consideration of AFCD, covering 1,120 hectares of land with over 95% of government land.

The conservation importance of RNCP has long been recognized by the Government. Roy Ng Hei Man, Campaign Manager of The Conservancy Association, mentioned that “Back in 1993 and 2008, the Territorial Development Strategy Review Study and feasibility study of the Land Use Planning for the Frontier Closed Area by the Planning Department have already recommended the designation of the RNCP respectively. The Government promised in the 2017 Policy Address that Robin’s Nest will be designated as a Country Park while The Secretary of Environment Mr. Wong Kam Sing also confirmed in December 2018 that the designation of the RNCP is on its way. It is clear that the conservation of Robin’s Nest is well-recognized and the Government should therefore not further delay the designation”.

The groups consider that the Country Park system is suitable for the protection, conservation and management of important ecological resources in the Robin’s Nest and associated areas. Woo Ming Chuan, Senior Conservation Officer of The Hong Kong Bird Watching Society, said that “The northern slope of Robin’s Nest, extending from Shan Tsui to San Kwai Tin and Lin Ma Hang, is well covered with continuous secondary woodland intermingled with natural streams of conservation concern. It thus supports a high diversity of flora and fauna. Two Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) were even designated in this area for the conservation of the highly restricted, rare freshwater fish Chinese Rasbora and one of the most important bat colonies in Hong Kong. The globally vulnerable Chinese Grassbird preferred upland grassland habitat stretches from the southern slope of Robin’s Nest to Wo Keng Shan and Heung Yuen Wai, while the lowland grasslands at Lin Ma Hang and Man Uk Pin are potential wintering sites of this species. Many large fung shui woodlands with mature trees are found along the foot of the southern slope of Robin’s Nest”.

Robin’s Nest is well-recognized as the only obvious terrestrial ecological corridor between Hong Kong and mainland China, with continuous secondary woodland at the northern slope ecologically connected to the Wutongshan National Forest Park in Shenzhen while strips of woodlands and other undisturbed vegetated areas at the southern slope are linked to those at the Pat Sin Leng Country Park. Dr. Cheng Luk Ki, Director of Green Power, said, “This corridor is the only well-vegetated pathway with little built-up area where wild animals (e.g. land birds, reptiles, amphibians, small mammals) can still move between Hong Kong and Shenzhen/Guangdong, thus their population in these two places can be healthily sustained. Therefore, all the habitats along this corridor should be well-protected to maintain such ecological connectivity both across and within the Hong Kong border”.

Various heritage resources within the Robin’s Nest area have different local historical interest or significance. Roy Ng added, “For example, the Grade-2-listed Macintosh Forts at Pak Kung Au and Kong Shan served the role in bringing law and order to the frontier and in the control of illegal immigration. Some ruins, pillboxes and other structures are believed to have been built for defensive purpose during the 20th century. Lin Ma Hang Lead Mine and its adjacent ruins form good evidence in reflecting Hong Kong’s mining history. The hilly terrain of Robin’s Nest is also identified as being of high landscape value in the Landscape Value Mapping of Hong Kong by the Planning Department in 2003”.

Robin’s Nest is not only used by local people for passive recreational activities, but is also becoming more popular among hikers and the public since the opening-up of the Frontier Closed Area. Paul Zimmerman, Chief Executive of Designing Hong Kong, said “All these activities indicate the recreational potential of Robin’s Nest, and the urgency of the Country Park designation, in order to provide better habitat protection and management for the enjoyment of the public. The Country Park Ordinance (Cap. 208) would offer a higher level of protection than the land use control under the Town Planning Ordinance (Cap. 131). Habitats of conservation concern can be actively managed and protected with regular patrols. Facilities for visitors and hiking routes can be designed, provided and maintained in the ecologically and scenically less-sensitive areas of the Country Park, for public education and enjoyment. Existing graves and burial grounds can be respected and managed within the Country Park for better regulation and fire prevention”.

The groups strongly urge AFCD to consider the proposal and define the boundary of the RNCP according to the “Principles and Criteria for Designating Country Parks (2011)” (2011 Principles and Criteria). From the 2011 Principles and Criteria, conservation value, recreation potential as well as landscape and aesthetic value are the key themes of the intrinsic criteria for identifying suitable areas for designating Country Parks, while private land is not automatically taken as a determining factor for exclusion from the Country Park boundary. The aforementioned areas of high ecological, historical, cultural and landscape value should therefore be included within the boundary of RNCP for nature and heritage conservation and management.

Six co-organized groups (in alphabetical order):
The Conservancy Association, Designing Hong Kong, Green Power, The Hong Kong Bird Watching Society, The Hong Kong Countryside Foundation, Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden

Supporting organizations (in alphabetical order):
Association for Geoconservation, Hong Kong, Ecology & Biodiversity Society, SS, HKUSU, Friends of the Earth (HK), Friends of Hoi Ha, Greeners Action, Greenpeace, Greensense, Hong Kong Outdoors, Living Islands Movement, Sai Kung Cattle’s Angel

31 December

飲品業龍頭企業與非政府組織攜手減廢 目標回收七至九成飲品包裝Leading drink companies together with NGOs target 70%-90% recovery of used beverage packaging

Group photo
飲品業龍頭企業與非政府組織攜手減廢 目標回收七至九成飲品包裝

• 去年,超過八成飲品包裝,即超過17億個容器遭棄掉浪費。
• 「免『廢』暢飲」行動支持推行廢包裝現金回贈計劃及及安裝飲水/品機。
• 促請香港特區政府規管包裝標準,並為回收工作提供支援。
• 飲料行業將採取自願措施減少垃圾。

2018年12月6日,香港:佔本港樽裝水和汽水近半銷售額的主要飲料生產商和裝瓶商,今天聯同主要連鎖零售商、回收業界及非政府組織,聯合宣佈其減少超過17億經使用及廢棄飲品容器的建議,以減低本地垃圾堆填區、郊野、海灘和海洋環境的壓力。去年,香港的PET樽回收率為9%,而紙包飲品盒的回收率更為0%。

一次性飲品包裝工作小組(下稱「小組」)在香港成立,旨在減少從非酒精飲品消耗所產生的廢物。該工作小組在去年十二月正式啟動免「廢」暢飲行動,推動本港達致七成至九成 PET容器及紙包飲品盒回收率為目標。小組深信,只要政府、生產商、零售商、回收商以至消費者能通力合作,上述回收率增長可在2025年或之前得以實現。

綠惜地球創辦人及總幹事、免「廢」暢飲行動發言人劉祉鋒先生表示:「我們所有人都有責任。每當我們把一次性飲料容器棄置在堆填區或大自然,環境都會遭受損害。」

劉先生續道:「我們的目標是減少使用一次性飲料包裝,而在無法避免的情況下,以財政誘因鼓勵回收包裝,從而提高回收率。香港還需要建立高效的PET樽和紙包飲品盒回收機制,以及透過法規確保包裝的質量,並加強公眾教育。」

減少飲料消耗所產生廢物的策略和行動
小組向生產商、進口商、零售商、廢物管理服務商、消費者和香港特區政府提出四項主要建議:減少一次性飲料容器、規管包裝標準、加強回收,以及循環再用經使用的飲品包裝。

無塑海洋總監Dana Winograd女士表示:「我們支持在香港創造一個讓消費者能在任何地方恆常地用自備的水樽和杯子添飲水、汽水和其他飲料的環境。」
香港鐵路有限公司持續發展事務主管鄭聲謙先生同意上述觀點:「我們已在東涌站和香港西九龍站安裝了飲水機,同時我們會繼續監察此計劃的使用情況和成效。」

香港機場管理局可持續發展助理總經理吳敏(Mike Kilburn)先生表示:「香港國際機場擁有本港其中一個最大的飲水機和熱水機網絡。截至2018年,香港機場管理局已在整個航站樓的13個地點安裝了104部飲水機和23部熱水機,深受乘客和我們的員工歡迎,是使用一次性塑料容器裝載飲料的免費替代品。有關飲水機和熱水機位置的資訊已載於『我的航班』應用程式和其他非政府組織平台。我們很樂意與其他有興趣安裝飲水機和熱水機的機構分享我們的經驗。」
小組嚮應政府呼籲推出現金回贈計劃,以提升PET樽回收率。小組建議將這類計劃擴展到其他包裝,包括紙包飲品盒。目前,本港經使用金屬罐的回收率為85%,反映以經濟誘因可有效提升回收率。小組建議向生產商和進口商徵費,從而補貼現金回贈計劃,並資助物流成本以及本地回收業。

據小組稱,把PET樽和紙包飲品盒的物料統一的法規有助將經使用的包裝加工成有價值的原料,如PET和紙張,並應用於新包裝和其他產品。

太古可口可樂香港董事兼總經理,以及香港飲品商會會長利偉達(Neil Waters)先生表示:「我們非常重視可持續發展。我們不斷重新設計包裝,包括大幅減少PET樽中的塑料重量,使產品包裝百分百可回收。我們將於2019年底前全面轉用百分百循環再造的PET生產所有Bonaqua礦物質水包裝。另外,我們亦將於全港推出300部Bonaqua加水站,支持「自備水樽」。我們將積極尋求再進一步的所有可能性。」 其他主要飲料生產商亦作出類似的承諾。屈臣氏實業飲品製造市務總經理于德超先生表示:「我們自2015年開始一直自發轉用100%再生PET物料作產品包裝,不僅減少生產、使用和浪費塑料,還有助於減低碳排放量。」
維他奶香港行政總裁兼香港飲品商會副主席劉盛雪女士說:「維他奶香港支持「免『廢』暢飲」活動。與公司「可持續增長」營運模式一致,我們正致力於膠樽及紙盒包裝的工作。對於膠樽,除了已實行及持續減輕重量,設置「飲品容器環保回收機」收集廢棄膠樽及蒸餾水環保補水站支持「自備水樽」行動,我們現致力於2019/20年度試行採用循環再造的PET膠樽。在紙盒方面,我們正與供應商及相關回收商聯繫,探討合作在香港進行紙盒包裝回收處理。」

劉祉鋒指出,2018年起生效的中國內地執行廢物進口禁令改變了香港和世界各地的回收做法。他表示:「嚴重依賴向中國內地和其他經濟體出口可回收材料不再是解決方法,香港必須建造先進的回收設施以處理本地產生的廢物。這有助香港發展循環經濟,並幫助我城實現可持續發展。」

特區政府於土地和物流上的支援,對控制回收成本和及早達致七成至九成包裝回收率的目標攸關重要。

關於免「廢」暢飲
免「廢」暢飲行動展示了業界人士和環保團體共同解決環境問題的可能性。自2017年12月,飲料生產商、裝瓶商、零售商、回收商及非政府機構組成一次性飲品包裝工作小組以來,該小組一直致力制訂策略和行動,減少本港從消耗飲料產生的廢物。

一次性飲料包裝工作小組主席司馬文(Paul Zimmerman)先生表示:「我們均知道一次性包裝無論在設計、使用,抑或在回收各方面都需要進行徹底改變。我們建議的策略和行動,對香港來說是務實而且共融的。為達致九成飲品包裝的減廢目標,所有持份者,包括業界、公眾和特區政府必須通力合作,盡量減低對消費者價格、選擇和便利程度的影響。」

該小組成員包括香港機場管理局、屈臣氏集團、牛奶有限公司,香港上海大酒店有限公司、香港鐵路有限公司、無塑海洋、太古飲料有限公司、維他奶國際集團有限公司、世界自然基金會香港分會及其他主要市場參與者。

小組委託德勤咨詢(香港)有限公司聯同Cistri Limited進行一項全面研究,以尋找和評估適用於本港的有效方案,管理一次性密封容器產生的飲品包裝垃圾。研究結果在本立場書的撰寫過程中提供了重要資訊。

小組的立場書詳細介紹了策略和行動,已載於:https://drinkwithoutwaste.org/drink-without-waste-resources/

請瀏覽免『廢』暢飲網站(www.drinkwithoutwaste.org)支持行動。

press con panel
(由左至右):德勤(香港)風險咨詢總監翁介中先生、綠惜地球創辦人及總幹事兼一次性飲品包裝工作小組發言人劉祉鋒先生、一次性飲品包裝工作小組主席司馬文先生及香港飲品商會主席利偉達先生。
(from left to right): Mr. Herbert Yung, Director, Risk Advisory, Deloitte Advisory (Hong Kong); Mr. Edwin Lau, Founder and Executive Director, The Green Earth, Hong Kong and Spokesperson for Drink Without Waste; Mr. Paul Zimmerman, Chairman of the Single-Use Beverage Packing Working Group; and Mr. Neil Waters, President of the Hong Kong Beverage Association.

Leading drink companies together with NGOs target 70%-90% recovery of used beverage packaging
• Over 80% of beverage packaging, or over 1.7 billion containers, were wasted last year.
• The Drink Without Waste initiative supports cash-on-return of used packaging and the installation of refill dispensers.
• The HKSAR government is urged to regulate packaging standards and provide support for recycling.
• The beverage industry will take voluntary measures to reduce waste.

Hong Kong, 6 December 2018: Hong Kong’s leading beverage producers and bottlers, representing nearly half of all the bottled water and soft drinks sold in the city, together with major retailers, recyclers and NGOs, today announce their proposals to reduce the over 1.7 billion used and discarded beverage containers that end up in Hong Kong’s landfills, countryside, beaches and the marine environment. Last year, recovery rates in Hong Kong were at 9% for PET and 0% for liquid cartons.

The Single-Use Beverage Packaging Working Group was formed to help reduce the waste generated from non-alcoholic beverage consumption in Hong Kong. They launched the Drink Without Waste initiative in December last year and now pledge to work towards 70%-90% recovery rates for PET containers and liquid cartons in Hong Kong. They believe that with all parties – government, producers, retailers, recyclers and consumers – working closely together, this increase could be achieved by 2025.

“We all are responsible. We harm the environment when we dispose of single-use beverage containers at our landfills and in the natural environment,” said Edwin Lau Che-feng, Founder and Executive Director of The Green Earth, Hong Kong and spokesperson for Drink Without Waste.

“Our aim is to reduce single-use beverage packaging and, where this is not possible, to increase the recycling rate of packaging with financial incentives. This is to encourage return and collection. Hong Kong also needs to develop efficient recycling for PET bottles and liquid cartons, ensure the quality of used packaging through legislation, and increase public education.”

Strategies and actions to reduce waste from beverage consumption
The group is making four major recommendations to producers, importers, retailers, waste management services, consumers and the HKSAR government: to reduce single-use beverage containers, to regulate packaging standards, to recover used packaging, and to recycle them.

“We support creating an environment in Hong Kong, where consumers routinely refill their own bottles and cups from dispensers for water, soft drinks and other beverages throughout the city,” said Dana Winograd, Director of Plastic Free Seas.

Simeon Cheng, Head of Sustainability at MTR Corporation Limited echoed this view: “We have installed water dispensers in Tung Chung Station and Hong Kong West Kowloon Station, and we are continuing to monitor the usage and effectiveness of our programme.”

Mike Kilburn, Assistant General Manager, Sustainability at the Airport Authority Hong Kong, said: “HKIA has one of the largest networks of drinking fountains and hot water dispensers in Hong Kong. As of 2018, Airport Authority Hong Kong has installed 104 drinking fountains and 23 hot water dispensers in 13 locations throughout the terminal buildings. These fountains and hot water dispensers provide a welcome amenity and a free alternative to drinks served in single use plastic beverage containers to the passengers and staff travelling through and working at HKIA. Information about the locations of our drinking fountains and hot water dispensers is available through the “HKG MyFlight” app and other NGO platforms. We would be delighted to share our experience with others who may be interested to deploy drinking fountains and hot water dispensers of their own.”

The group supports the HKSAR government call for cash-on-return schemes to increase recovery rates of plastic bottles. The group proposes that these schemes are extended to other packaging, including liquid cartons. Currently the recovery rates for used metal cans in Hong Kong is 85%, demonstrating the effectiveness of a monetary value. The group proposes that a levy should be collected from producers and importers to cover the cost of cash-on-return schemes and to help subsidise logistics and local recycling.

According to the group, regulations to homogenise all plastic bottles and liquid cartons allows used packaging to be processed into valuable feedstock such as PET and paper for new packaging and other products.

“We take sustainability seriously,” said Neil Waters, Director and General Manager of Swire Coca-Cola Hong Kong and President of the Hong Kong Beverage Association. “We continuously reengineer our packaging, including significantly cutting the amount of plastic in our bottles and making our packaging 100% recyclable. Through 2019 we will complete the conversion of all our ‘Bonaqua’ Mineralized Water packaging to 100% rPET. In addition, we will launch 300 Bonaqua water stations across Hong Kong to promote the Bring Your Own Bottle initiative. We will continue to search out all possible opportunities to do more.”

Other major drink producers are also making similar commitments. “We have voluntarily taken steps to transform our packaging to 100% recycled PET material since 2015,” said Edmond Yu, General Manager – Marketing of A.S. Watson Industries. “This not only reduces the production, use and wastage of plastic, but also helps with cutting carbon emissions.” “Vitasoy Hong Kong supports the Drink Without Waste initiative. Consistently with our Company’s sustainable growth model, we are working on both plastic and carton packaging. For plastics, beyond having implemented and continuing weight reduction, installing Reverse Vending Machines to collect used bottles and Water Refilling machines to support the Bring Your Own Bottle initiative, we are working on enabling recycled PET pilots in our 2019/20 fiscal year. For carton, we are engaging our suppliers and relevant recyclers to collaborate on carton pack collection and recycling in Hong Kong,” said Dorcas Lau, CEO of Vitasoy Hong Kong and Vice President of the Hong Kong Beverage Association.

According to Edwin Lau, the waste import restrictions launched by mainland China since 2018 have changed the recycling practices in Hong Kong and around the world. “Relying heavily on exporting recyclable materials to the mainland and other economies is no longer a solution,” he said. “Hong Kong has to build state-of-the-art recycling facilities to take care of our own waste. This in turn will help develop a circular economy and help our city become sustainable.”

Land and logistic support from the HKSAR government are considered essential to controlling the cost of recycling and to achieving the goal of between 70% and 90% recovery of packaging early.

About Drink Without Waste
The Drink Without Waste initiative demonstrates how industry players and environmental groups can work together to tackle environmental issues. Since December 2017, the Single-Use Beverage Packaging Working Group, a broad coalition of drink producers, bottlers, retailers, recyclers and NGOs, has been working to develop strategies and actions to reduce waste from the consumption of beverages in Hong Kong.

“We all know there needs to be wholesale change in the ways we design, use and recycle single-use packaging,” said Paul Zimmerman, Chairman of the Single-Use Beverage Packing Working Group. “The strategies and actions we recommend are meant to be pragmatic and inclusive for Hong Kong. To stop 90% of beverage packaging from going to waste, all stakeholders including the industry, general public and the HKSAR government, will need to work together closely to limit impacts on consumer price, choice and convenience.”

Members of the group include Airport Authority of Hong Kong, A.S. Watson Group, Dairy Farm Company Limited, The Hongkong and Shanghai Hotels Limited, MTR Corporation Limited, Plastic Free Seas Limited, Swire Beverages Limited, Vitasoy International Holdings Limited, WWF-Hong Kong and other key players.

The group commissioned Deloitte Advisory (Hong Kong) Limited, together with Cistri Limited, to carry out a comprehensive study to identify and evaluate how to effectively manage waste from single-use sealed beverage containers in Hong Kong. The findings informed the development of a positioning paper published by the group.

小組的立場書詳細介紹了策略和行動,已載於:
https://drinkwithoutwaste.org/drink-without-waste-resources/

請瀏覽免『廢』暢飲網站(www.drinkwithoutwaste.org)支持行動。