Tap Hong Kong’s public markets as recycling points under new Environment and Ecology Bureau 綠在食環街市 – 由香港仔街市做起
|
|
|
Green Group Joint statement on Northern Metropolis Strategy 環保團體對《北部都會區發展策略》的聯合回應
Joint green group recommendations on Northern Metropolis Strategy:
A call for a holistic conservation policy and timetable for the protection of sites of conservation importance
Photo credit: WWF-Hong Kong
We appreciate and welcome the proactive conservation measures proposed by the Government under the Northern Metropolis Strategy, including the resumption of private fishponds and other wetlands in the Deep Bay area in the Northwestern New Territories under the Land Resumption Ordinance (Cap. 124). However, the Northern Metropolis also has been planned to host a population of about 2.5 million people. With development at such mammoth scale, we consider that a series of measures and actions are required to ensure current conservation efforts are not compromised by developments in the Northern Metropolis area before and during the planning, construction and operation phases. Thus, we urge the Chief Executive and her teams to take the following measures in regard to the nature conservation issues of the Northern Metropolis Strategy: (more…)
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。 (more…)
[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
（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）。
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
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
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/
The battle for country parks is not yet won郊野公園的抗爭仍長路漫漫
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。
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
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
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
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
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
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。
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:
- 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%);
- Reconfirm the principles: Polluters Pay, Source Separation of Waste, and Producers’ Responsibility;
- Allocate HKD 800-1000 million for waste reduction and recycling; and
- 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:
- Extend the collection network of food waste collection across 18 districts, to all FEHD Refuse Collection Point and public housing estates;
- Allocate resources and financial incentives for maintenance and contractor staff training for food waste collection in all private housing estates;
- Invest in food waste technology and create more jobs in recycling industry, e.g. logistic and technical support for food waste collection services;
- Educate the public on waste reduction and separation of food waste.
Plastic waste recycling
- Extend the pilot schemes of plastic collection to all 18 districts to provide convenience to the public;
- Implement the producer responsibility system for beverage (disposable) containers;
- Retrofit and expand public water dispensers for hygienic and COVID-proof bottle refilling;
- Regulate disposable tableware;
- Regulation of excessive packaging of food products;
- Ban the use of styrofoam and microplastic in personal care products
Topside development on XRL – Survey Result
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。
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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%).
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.