青衣出行 Commute in TY
VOTING RESULTS: The Future of Our Payphone Locations 投票結果：電話亭的未來
On 4 February, we invited you to give us ideas for making better use of our payphone locations.
Next, we published the 34 proposals and asked people to vote here.
Today we announce the voting results so far. The three most and the three least liked ideas, as well as the full results, are below.
We urge the Government to replace our payphones with multi-purpose communications panels, reverse vending machines where you can drop off plastic bottles, and hydra-chills where you can fill up chilled water.
Feel free to leave us your comments on our facebook/ the comment section below.
在2月4日，我們邀請了大家就如何改善原有電話亭的用途提供意見。
之後，我們公佈了34個提議，並邀請大家在此投票。
今天，我們在此宣布最新的投票結果。最受歡迎、最不受歡迎的頭三名和完整結果如下。
我們促請政府應以「多功能服務站」、「膠樽回收機」和「二合一水機」取代電話亭。
歡迎在我們的facebook或下面的留言格留言。
The full voting results to-date.
最新的投票結果。
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
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
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
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。
（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。
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
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
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
Nam Sang Wai Conservation Poll Result 保育南生圍投票結果公佈
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
「民間土地資源專家組」成立 Formation of a Citizens Task Force on Land Resources
「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 |
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 |
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
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。
7個月內所收集的醫療廢料
Collected medical waste within 7 months
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
Support a footbridge at Waterfall Bay 支持於瀑布灣興建行人橋
> Petition Link: http://supporthk.org/en/node/4412/ <
On 17 June 2017, a 38-year-old father slipped and fell down the at Waterfall Bay. At least three people had a fatal accident here since 2006. We asked government for a pedestrian footbridge in 2010 but progress has been slow.
We need a guarantee that government will provide a safe link for residents who walk between Wah Fu Estate and Cyberport and for those who would like to enjoy the spectacular views of the Waterfall.
Sign Now to urge the government to speed up a safe footbridge at Waterfall Bay!
AM730 column on the same: Link
News report of accident (Chinese): Link
> 聯署連結：http://supporthk.org/zh-hant/node/4416/ <
2017年6月17日，一名年輕爸爸於瀑布灣瀑布頂懷疑跣腳失足墮崖死亡。自2006年起，共有最少三位市民懷疑失足墮崖而喪失生命。我們早於2010年便向政府建議在瀑布頂設置安全的行人橋，但進展緩慢。
我們需要政府承諾會於瀑布頂提供安全的行人路連接數碼港及華富邨，同時令更多市民能欣賞瀑布灣的景色。
馬上簽署網上請願信，要求政府加快興建瀑布灣行人橋！
AM730專欄：連結
新聞報導：連結
New dangerous medical waste found at HK’s beaches puts residents at risk 新危險醫料廢料襲港，對市民構成嚴重威脅
具危險性的醫療廢物持續污染香港的水質和海灘，對市民的健康及安全構成威脅。
在今年的7月12日，大批由志願者拾獲的醫療廢物已交給環境保護署進行調查，可惜至今仍未收到環境保護署對事件的回覆或發表任何調查結果。
創建香港行政總裁司馬文先生，居民Moran Zukerman及無塑海洋行政總裁Tracey Read今天於政府總部外展示大批於大嶼山海灘拾獲的醫療廢物，並再次交給環境保護署化驗及作進一步的調查。此外，他們更向環境保護署遞交信件，表達對事件的極度關注及促請有關部門盡快展開調查及跟進工作。
是次具危險性的醫療廢料在今年7月至11月於大嶼山海灘拾獲，包括303枝針筒、96枝針筒連針、超過200個玻璃小藥瓶、一枝裝滿疑似血液的試管和大量膠製藥瓶及藥袋等。部份物品更有被魚咬過的痕跡。
由於事態日趨嚴重，我們促請政府盡快成立誇部門小組調查醫療廢物的性質及來源，並設立資料儲存庫和制定行動計劃處理以上違法棄置及具危險性的醫療廢料。
如需要詳盡資訊，可參考2016年7月12日的新聞稿：https://goo.gl/42p5DX
Hazardous medical waste continues to pollute Hong Kong’s water and beaches. The waste threatens the health and safety of local residents.
The Environmental Protection Department (EPD) has yet to respond and publish the investigation outcomes after large amounts of medical waste were collected and delivered to government on 12 July 2016.
Today, Designing Hong Kong’s CEO Paul Zimmerman, Moran Zukerman, a local resident, and Plastic Free Seas’ CEO Tracey Read submitted again a large amount of medical waste retrieved from a Lantau beach to the EPD outside the Central Government Office. In a letter they urged EPD to take follow up action.
The newly found dangerous medical waste collected at one Lantau beach from July – November 2016, includes 303 syringes without needles, 96 syringes with needles, more than 200 drug vials, a collection tube suspected of containing human blood, plastic medicine bottles and packets. Some of the items have evidence of bite marks by fish.
What is now needed is an in-depth inter-departmental investigation into the source and nature of the waste and to establish a database and action plan which deals with the illegal disposal of hazardous medical waste.
The government is urged to act with expediency in response to the medical waste found.
More information
Press release on 12 July 2016: https://goo.gl/42p5DX
【新聞聲明：環團聯合要求擴大東涌河畔公園範圍】【Press Statement：Green groups jointly call for extension of proposed Tung Chung River Nature Park】
【新聞聲明：環團聯合要求擴大東涌河畔公園範圍】
環團聯合要求將東涌河畔公園覆蓋整條東涌河（包括東、西面河段）及其河口。
為了實踐這個建議，政府需要在東涌新巿鎮擴展計劃中回購沿東涌河及河口的私人土地，擴大擬建的東涌河畔公園，並管理這個公園，以作為公眾能欣賞自然環境的休閒康樂場所，同時設置相應的防洪設施。
東涌河是香港少數保持著天然狀態的河流系統。東涌河發源自九百多米的鳯凰山和大東山〈分別是香港第二和第三高峰〉，從河源到東涌灣的河口形成連續和貫通的高山至河口海岸的整全河流生態系統，孕育不少高保育價值的物種，包括紫身枝牙鰕虎魚(Stiphodon atropurpureum) 、北江光唇魚(Acrossocheilus beijiangensis)、中國鱟〈馬蹄蟹〉(Tachypleus tridentatus)、舒氏海龍(Syngnathus schlegeli) 、黃嘴白鷺 (Egretta eulophotes), 裳鳳蝶 (Troides helena) 及白頸鴉（Corvus torquatusis）等。
東涌谷的分區計劃大綱圖在2016年1月8日刊憲，東涌河畔公園僅覆蓋東涌谷的東面。該部分劃為「其他指定用途（只適用於「河畔公園」）」，擬由渠務署管理。西面的河流和河口則劃為保育的土地用途，包括「海岸保護區」及「自然保育區」。環團現建議將西面的河流和河口都劃作「其他指定用途（只適用於「河畔公園」）」。
過去二十多年，我們觀察到與東涌河流不相容的發展和生態破壞的激增。受破壞的土地由2007年的4.8%上升至2015年的13%。
除非在新巿鎮擴展計劃中收購河岸和河口的私人土地用作河畔公園，並由相關的政府部門管理和監察，否則這些地方將會受到破壞。政府必須承認現時的規劃和環境法例，難以保護具保育價值的私人土地免受破壞。
我們估算過額外收購土地的成本約為3億 。有關計劃將會有利土地持有人、本地居民和遊客。
環團建議擴展東涌河畔公園可確保東涌河和河口可持續的保育，亦可讓現在和未來的東涌新巿鎮居民欣賞和享受自然環境，保護敏感的生境，並可設立相應的防洪設施。
支持團體：
創建香港
生態教育及資源中心
綠色力量
香港觀鳥會
長春社
世界自然基金會香港分會
大嶼山愛護水牛協會
【Press Statement：Green groups jointly call for extension of proposed Tung Chung River Nature Park】
Green groups jointly propose to extend the Tung Chung River Nature Park so that it covers both the eastern and western sections of the river, and the estuary.
To implement this proposal, the Government is to resume the private land along the Tung Chung River and the estuary as part of the Tung Chung New Town Extension Development Plan, and to manage the extended Tung Chung River Nature Park as a public amenity for leisure, recreation and appreciation of nature, as well as a drainage facility to control flooding.
Tung Chung River largely retained its natural state from Hong Kong’s second and third highest peaks, all the way down to the shallow estuary in Tung Chung Bay. It offers one of the few remaining natural low land habitats and is exceptionally rich in aquatic and coastal biodiversity. It includes many rare and endangered species, such as the Philippine Neon Goby (Stiphodon atropurpureum 紫身枝牙鰕虎魚), Beijiang Thick-lipped Barb (Acrossocheilus beijiangensis 北江光唇魚), Chinese Horseshoe Crab (Tachypleus tridentatus 中國鱟), Seaweed Pipefish (Syngnathus schlegeli 舒氏海龍), Swinhoe’s Egret (Egretta eulophotes 黃嘴白鷺), as well as the Common Birdwing (Troides helena 裳鳳蝶) and Collared Crow (Corvus torquatusis白頸鴉).
In the zoning plan for Tung Chung Valley gazetted on 08/01/2016, a river park is proposed to cover only the eastern section of Tung Chung Valley. It is zoned as OU (For River Parks only), and is expected to be managed by the Drainage Services Department. The western section of the river and the estuary are currently zoned for conservation uses including Coastal Protection Area (CPA) and Conservation Area (CA). The green groups now propose that the western section of the river and estuary should also be included under the zoning of OU (For River Parks only).
Over the past two decades we observed a proliferation of incompatible developments and eco-vandalism in Tung Chung River Valley. Ecologically degraded land areas increased from 4.8% in 2007 to approximately 13% in 2015.
Unless the private lands along the river banks and estuary are resumed under the New Town development plan, and managed and patrolled by relevant government departments as part of the River Park, these areas would be doomed. Government has at times itself admitted that under the current planning and environmental laws, it is unable to safeguard private land from environmental destruction.
The additional land acquisition cost is estimated at $300 million. This proposal will benefit the land owners, as well as local residents and visitors.
The green groups’ proposal to extend the River Nature Park will ensure the long term sustainability of Tung Chung River and the estuary as a natural resource for the use and enjoyment by existing and future residents of Tung Chung New Town, protect ecologically sensitive habitats, and allow the management of local flood hydraulics.
Designing Hong Kong
Eco-Education & Resources Centre
Green Power
Hong Kong Bird Watching Society
Lantau Buffalo Association
The Conservancy Association
WWF – Hong Kong
東涌谷分區規劃大綱圖（顯示土地用途）及地段索引圖（顯示業權），兩圖展示了政府建議8.45公頃的河畔公園和環團建議更為完整的21.5公頃的河畔公園。
東涌谷的分區計劃大綱圖在2016年1月8日刊憲，東涌河畔公園僅覆蓋東涌谷的東面（藍色虛線）。該部分劃為「其他指定用途（只適用於「河畔公園」）」。
環團現建議將西面的河流和河口（紅色虛線）都劃作「其他指定用途（只適用於「河畔公園」）」，並由政府回購擴展部分的私人土地。
The zoning plan (land use) and the lot index plan (land ownership) show the park proposed by Government (8.45Ha) and the bigger park proposed by green groups (21.5Ha).
In the zoning plan for the Tung Chung Valley gazetted on 08/01/2016, the area zoned “OU (For River Parks only)” covers only the eastern section of the Tung Chung Valley (blue striped outline).
The green groups push for the western section of the river and the estuary to be added (red dotted outline) and to resume the private lands within the extended park area.