關於 develop country park in hong kong ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

明明可以用的地還有
明明要從需求落手，又不去做
一定要開發郊野公園，是何居心?!
.
一寸都不能少!!

【環保團體聯合聲明】
【Joint Statement from Green Groups】

反對開發郊野公園 不接受「可加可減」
郊野公園具重要旅遊康樂及規劃功能 港人重要綠色寶庫
應先善用棕土、軍營及閒置土地

Objection to Developing Country Parks and the Adjustment Mechanism
Make Use of Brownfield Sites, Military Camps and Spare Land

行政長官梁振英向傳媒公開表示，已指示政府部門就發展郊野公園作研究。環保團體對此感到十分憤怒，因為社會有眾多聲音明確反對開發郊野公園，政府當局仍然一意孤行，更為此目的投放資源作具體行動，是蓄意與社會製造矛盾。
.
香港仍有不少可作發展的土地，過去房屋問題只源自「分配不均」。政府多年來逃避檢討「丁屋政策」（為丁屋預留土地）、未有動用閒置的軍營、未有以「棕土優先」發展等，為導致目前情況的主要原因。政府亦沒有正視大量住宅單位空置及私樓單位成為投資工具的問題，是政府的政策出錯，卻以缺地作掩飾。明明有其他可行及有共識的可用土地，政府仍以老人家及公屋輪候冊上的人為人質，提出發展郊野公園，是絕不可接受。
.
郊野公園是香港重要的特色，亦是重要綠色寶庫，除包含保護珍貴生態的環境價值，亦有旅遊（香港的郊野公園世界聞名）、社會（供大眾休憩）、規劃（限制城市過度擴張）等重要功能。郊野公園亦是重要集水區，讓足夠雨水流入周邊的水塘，提供港人生命之源。郊野公園有大量樹木，吸收二氧化碳，抵銷部份因燃燒化石燃料產生的溫室氣體，紓緩全球暖化。郊野公園亦有無以彌補的珍貴地質地貌。
.
梁振英指可選取「生態價值較低」的地帶發展，我們並不同意。郊野公園的一草一木、花鳥蟲魚皆是生命，她們亦有自身存在的意義與價值，而生態價值亦沒有百份百客觀標準衡量。梁振英提出郊野公園「可加可減」機制，更是保育的「語言偽術」，。現存的每一片郊野公園的地理位置、地勢、環境及生態本來就獨一無二，不應被任何藉口取締，以另一處新郊野公園「面積」作交換是誤人耳目。
.
梁振英在未有善用棕土、軍營及閒置土地之前，就提倡開發郊野公園邊陲，是規劃目標錯誤。房屋問題亦不能單靠盲目覓地處理，亦需要同時透過人口政策，控制房屋需求來解決。大自然一旦遭破壞將無法復原，絕不應發展香港人引以為傲的郊野公園。
.
2017年1月26日
.
The Chief Executive Mr. CY Leung told the media that he has instructed relevant departments to conduct a study on developing country parks. Green Groups are furious and strongly opposed to this, as the public has already voiced opposition to the development of country parks. However, the government still insists on doing so and, furthermore, devotes more resources to this, deliberately leading to conflict within our community.
.
In fact, there is still a lot of land available for development in Hong Kong. The housing shortage problem has originated from “Uneven Distribution”. Over the years, the government has avoided reviewing the “Small House Policy” (land designated for New Territories Exempted Houses), unused Military Camps and Brownfield sites. These are the main reasons for the present situation. Moreover, the government has failed to address the problem of vacant housing units and private flats used for investment and speculation purposes, falsely presenting the situation as a “lack of land”. As there are other land resource options, it is totally unacceptable for the government to use the welfare of the elderly as an excuse for developing country parks.
.
Country Parks are important features and treasures in Hong Kong. Apart from the environmental value of preserving our precious ecology, they are also well-known for eco-tourism, community enjoyment (for public recreation) and even have a role to play in urban planning (for preventing over-expansion of the urban areas). Country parks are also important water catchment areas, which allow rainwater to flow into surrounding reservoirs. Furthermore, trees in country parks can absorb carbon dioxide and offset some of the greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels, which relieves global warming.
.
Mr. CY Leung pointed out that low ecological parts of country parks can be developed. We totally disagree with his claims. All the plants, flowers and birds in the country parks have their own meaning and value to the natural environment. Ecological value cannot be measured in objective criteria. He further suggested the “Adjustment Mechanism” in Country Parks, which we consider to be “weasel words” designed to mislead the public about conservation. The geographical location, the terrain, environment and the ecology of each existing country park are unique and should not be replaced by any excuses. The exchange of another “new” country park area is totally a mistake.
.
Mr. CY Leung hasn’t made good use of brownfield sites, military campsites or spare land before advocating the development of country park borders. Hong Kong’s housing problem could also be solved not just by finding land but also by controlling housing demand through a population policy. Once the natural environment is destroyed, it cannot be restored to what it was before. Therefore, the government should not develop our country parks, which are the pride of Hong Kong people.
.
＊＊＊聯署團體（不分先後，按名稱字母排序）＊＊＊
＊＊＊Co-sign Parties (Alphabetical Order)＊＊＊
伊甸方舟 Ark Eden
Association for Geoconservation, Hong Kong 香港地貌岩石保育協會
Clear The Air 爭氣行動
創建香港 Designing Hong Kong
香港大學學生會理學會環境生命科學學會 HKU Environmental Life Science Society
Friends of the Earth (HK) 香港地球之友
海下之友 Friends of Hoi Ha
大浪灣之友 Friends of Tailongwan
綠領行動 Greeners Action
綠色社區 Green Community
綠色大嶼山協會 Green Lantau Association
綠色和平東亞分部 Green Peace East Asia
綠色力量 Green Power
環保觸覺 Green Sense
香港自然生態論壇 HKWildlife.net
Hong Kong Bird Watching Society 香港觀鳥會
島嶼活力行動 Living Islands Movement - LIM
群峰學會 Range Education Centre
長春社 The Conservancy Association
綠惜地球 The Green Earth
香港自然探索學會​ Society of Hong Kong Nature Explorers Kong Nature Explorers

香港需要填海及開發郊野公園以解決房屋需求只是偽命題！

今日有團體發表報告，話香港土地嚴重不足，指出香港人口未來將達八百萬，建議應進一步填海及開發郊野公園以取得額外土地作建屋用途。事實上根據政府統計處最新公布嘅香港家庭住戶推算，喺未來35年，香港住戶數目只會增加約48萬戶，住戶數目會於2044-2049 年間減少，對房屋需求並非持續增加。另外，結合政府已出台嘅短中長期土地供應措施，能於未來20年提供超過50萬個單位。計一計，單位供應比需求仲多咗5%添！如果再加埋一系列尚在研究中嘅規劃項目，如新界北發展、棕地研究等，香港土地供應係綽綽有餘，點解仲要拎彌足珍貴嘅海洋同郊野公園嚟開刀呢？

熊貓會回應及詳細土地供應項目：wwf.hk/Relandsupplyreport2015

There’s no need to reclaim land from the sea and develop within country parks to meet housing demand

A report released today suggested land reclamation and country park development as solutions to land supply shortage as Hong Kong’s population hits eight million in the near future.

Truth is, according to Hong Kong Domestic Household Projections announced by Census and Statistics Department, in the next 35 years, there’ll only be 480,000 more households in the city and the numbers will drop between 2044 and 2049, thus the pressure for housing will ease. Besides, the government has already rolled out short, medium and long term measures to tackle the issue and create more than 500,000 housing units in the next 20 years. With plans to develop northern New Territories and brownfield sites underway, there should be more than enough land to build on.

If you do the maths, land supply will exceed demand by more than 5 per cent. So why don’t we leave our oceans and country parks as they are?
WWF’s response and the detailed land supply plan (Chinese only): wwf.hk/Relandsupplyreport2015

See how our research demystifies the land politics of the northern New Territories

本組向HK Magazine專題提供了反對新界北淪陷的重要理據，而新界東北正正就是撐住新界融合戰的橋頭堡!
--
[cover story] What Will Happen to the New Territories?
http://hk.asia-city.com/…/…/what-will-happen-new-territories

The government’s little-publicized plans for developing the northeastern New Territories are much bigger than it would have you believe—under the current plans, huge tracts of green land will be turned to concrete. Grace Tsoi takes a closer look at the many complex issues and concerns surrounding the project.

On September 2, while secondary school students were hunger striking at Tamar, a smaller-scale but equally vociferous protest was being staged. Several hundred villagers from Kwu Tung North, Fanling North, Ping Che and Ta Kwu Ling also staked out the government offices. They chanted slogans protesting against demolition and removal—their homes are slated to be destroyed, according to the government’s plan to develop the northeastern New Territories.

The development plan is not a new one. As early as 1998, former Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa floated the idea to develop Kwu Tung North, Fanling North, Ping Che and Ta Kwu Leng into three new development areas (NDAs). However, the plan was halted due to a slower-than-expected population expansion in 2003. Then in 2007, Donald Tsang restarted the Hong Kong 2030 Planning Vision and Strategy scheme, and the Northeastern New Territories were again slated to be developed. The three NDAs will total 787 hectares, of which 533 hectares will be built upon. The consultation was done in the dark, and the majority of the public only learnt of the development plan at the last stage of the consultation. Originally the consultation was set to conclude at the end of August, but due to staunch opposition, the government has extended the deadline until the end of September. Here, we line out the many problems and shortcomings of the government’s plans.

Can It Satisfy Housing Demand?

The government backs up the development plan by stating that more homes will be built in the northeast New Territories—an appealing idea in the wake of rocketing house prices. Around 54,000 homes will be built, with 40 percent of the flats set aside for public housing. During her tenure as Secretary for Development, Carrie Lam said the ratio of public housing should be kept at less than 50 percent in order to avoid a repeat of the disastrous Tin Shui Wai new town in Yuen Long. “The problem with Tin Shui Wai is not that there is too much public housing. It is because of the monopolies [for example, the community is served only be The Link and Li Ka-shing’s shopping malls and there are very few independent vendors] and insufficient jobs for the working class. Even hawking is prohibited,” says Chan Kim-ching, a researcher from Local Research Community, a think-tank focusing on urban planning. On the other hand, the project’s 21,600 public housing flats, which will be made available by the year 2022, don’t even come close to satisfying the government’s target of building 15,000 public housing homes per year. We have to ask—is getting rid of all this precious green space worth it? On the private housing side, low-density homes will be built. However, it is questionable whether these flats will be affordable for the majority of the Hong Kong public—Chan worries that they will be snapped up by mainland buyers instead of satisfying local housing needs.

Overestimating Population Growth

In order to justify the project, the government has, once again, cited population growth in its push to build more housing. A government press release states: “According to the latest population projections, there will be an increase of about 1.4 million people in the coming 30 years. There is still a strong demand for land for housing and economic development.” However, the Census and Statistics Department has a track record of overestimating Hong Kong’s population growth. In 2002, the department predicted that Hong Kong’s population would hit 7.53 million by 2011. But today, Hong Kong’s population is 7.14 million—way off government estimates. The department itself has also lowered its population estimates. In 2004, it predicted that Hong Kong’s population would surge to 8.72 million by mid-2031. But latest predictions stand at 8.47 million by mid-2041. So if the government’s predictions are not accurate and consistent, how can it justify such a large-scale development?

Non-indigenous Villagers Lose Out

It is estimated that more than 10,000 villagers will be affected by the plan, and that more than 10 villages will be demolished. Almost all of the villages that are under threat are largely inhabited by non-indigenous villagers. Non-indigenous villagers migrated to Hong Kong after World War II. They farmed in the New Territories and built their homes near their fields. However, they are not landowners because land in the New Territories belongs to indigenous villagers. So even though the non-indigenous villagers have lived in the area for decades, according to authorities, they have no rights to the land. “The most ridiculous thing is, even though non-indigenous villagers have been living there for 50 or 60 years, their houses are still classified as squatter huts, a temporary form of housing. The authorities don’t recognize their housing rights… Non-indigenous villagers are easy targets of bullying because their rights are not protected by law,” says Chan.

Although it is the non-indigenous villagers who will be most affected by the development plans, no one sought to gain their input. In fact, the first and second phases of the consultation, which were conducted in 2009 and 2010, did not actively engage them at all. “The villagers of Ping Che did not know about the plan before—they only learned of the plan when they were invited to a poon choi banquet hosted by gleeful indigenous villagers. Some of the elderly villagers attended, and they were only told at the feast that the celebration was because the government would claim the land for development. They only learned that they would have to move at the banquet,” Chan says.

Unlike urban renewal projects, the government has not conducted any studies to investigate how many villagers are going to be affected; neither has it come up with any compensation or resettlement plans for the affected villagers. The only thing the government has done is to carve out a 3.2 hectare parcel of land in Kwu Tung North, where a public housing project will accommodate the non-indigenous villagers.

Meanwhile, indigenous villagers are set to reap huge profits. All the land in the new Territories land is either owned by indigenous villagers or property developers. As the government has allocated $40 billion to buy land, it is certain that indigenous villagers will pocket part of the money. To add insult to injury, while their non-indigenous counterparts face the demolition of homes, the indigenous villages will be kept largely intact. Also, the government has saved land for the future expansion of indigenous villages. Within the three NDAs, around six hectares of land has been set aside for this purpose.

Loss of Farmland

Another inevitable consequence of developing the New Territories is the loss of farmland. A spokesperson of the Planning Department tells HK Magazine that 22 hectares of land under active cultivation will be affected by the development. That figure is significantly lower than estimates by environmental groups, which have come up with the figure of 98 hectares. “The government data refers to the land being farmed currently, but we focus on arable land. When we talk about arable land, it also includes abandoned land which has the potential to be rehabilitated. It is for sure that the government has not included such land in its figure of 22 hectares. From the perspective of agricultural development, abandoned land can be rehabilitated. So why don’t we protect and rehabilitate this land?” says Roy Ng, the Conservancy Association’s senior campaign officer.

Displaced Farmers

The government has pledged to maintain a total of 54 hectares as agricultural zones. However, 37 of these so-called “protected” hectares are found in Long Valley, a well-established and very active farming area. The government plans to relocate many of the farmers who have been displaced by the project to Long Valley, a move that’s bound to cause friction between agriculturalists. “If we move all the affected farmers to Long Valley, it means that some of the farmers [who are already] in Long Valley have to move away,” Ng says. “The agricultural practices of the farmers are very different. In Long Valley, most of the farmers are growing wetland crops. But most farmland in Ping Che and Ta Kwu Ling is not wetland… If we move all these farmers to wetland areas, it may have an adverse impact on the conservation of Long Valley.”





Word on the Street

Villagers are fighting for the right to remain in th eir homes, undisturbed by government intervention. Here’s what they have to say.

I have been living in Ping Che for almost five decades, and all my children were born there. Ping Che is a large village, where thousands of people reside. We only knew that our village would be demolished a few months ago, and we only caught wind of some rumors before. Ping Che is spacious, and we grow produce for ourselves. When we first came to Ping Che, it was a primitive place. We have been renting land from the villagers since then. And Ping Che has become a beautiful village due to our efforts. I don’t want to see our village be destroyed. My children have grown up, and they don’t want to move out either.
Amy, 50s, Ping Che resident



Our family has been living in Kwu Tong for three generations. Two years ago, we found out that our land had to be claimed back [by the government]. The development plan had been formulated for a long time, but the officials never told us about it. We were shocked to learn of the plan, and we think the government has kept the plan in the dark. There are a few hundred villagers, and we all know each other. Even though I am young, I love the rural life a lot. I lived in private buildings in Fanling for more than two years as it was closer to my school. The feeling was very different. In our village, everyone says hi to each other; we even know the name of each dog! [In Fanling], I didn’t know my neighbors, and I didn’t even notice when they moved away. I hope our village will not be demolished because we want to keep our lifestyle. We will continue to fight for our rights.
Hiu Ching, 18, Kwu Tung North resident



I have never joined any protest. This is my first time because the government wants to take away the land from our village. The officials never consulted us, and it seems that we have to comply with every order of the government. There are fruit trees in front of our house, and the trees are 20 to 30 years old. We get all kinds of fruits to eat. Lychee, longan, jackfruit, aloe and melons…you name it. It’s no different from an orchard. When we were kids, we didn’t need to close our doors because we would just go next door to play with other children. A lot of structures are very old, and they are our heritage. We have gotten used to the rural way of living, and it’s difficult for us to adapt to a city life. We don’t want any compensation. There are many elderly people in our village, and they have been living here for decades. For those skeptics who think that we are only demanding more compensation, try to think from our perspectives. We have been living here for decades, and our home will be lost!
Mr. Lee, 30, Kwu Tung North resident


Development By Numbers

An outline of the redevelopment plans by region.

1. Kwu Tong, Fanling North, Ping Che/Tai Koo Leng New Development Areas (NDAs)
Size: 533 hectares.
Progress: Stage 3 of public engagement.

2. Hung Sui Kiu NDA
No outline development plan has been released, but it will be turned into an NDA that caters a population of 160,000. The government will also save land for the development of “Six Industries”—testing and certification, medical services, innovation and technology, cultural and creative industries, environmental industries and education services.
Size: 790 hectares.
Progress: Stage 2 of public engagement to be commenced; in operation by 2024.

3. Lok Ma Chau Loop
Once the property of Shenzhen, the Loop was allocated to Hong Kong after realignment of the Shenzhen river in 1997. The area will be turned into a higher education zone.
Size: About 87 hectares.
Progress: Stage 2 of public engagement completed; in operation by 2020.

4. Liangtang/Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point
Progress: construction will start in 2013; in operation by 2018.

5. Frontier Closed Area (FCA)
Established by the British for strategic reasons, the FCA will be downsized and land will be released for development. Due to the area’s history, it hasn’t been touched by any development.
Use: A country park will be designated near Robin’s Nest. Other areas are zoned as green belt and for agricultural uses. But a comprehensive development zone and residential areas are designated for Hung Lung Hang. Hoo Hok Wai, another ecologically sensitive area that occupies 240 hectares, is zoned under “other specific uses,” which also means that further development is possible.
Size: 2,400 hectares.
Progress: 740 hectares of FCA has already been opened up in the first phase.

6. Southern Yuen Long
The government is planning to build housing—both private and public—in the area.
Size: About 200 hectares.
Progress: The Development Bureau will conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), planning and engineering study at the same time. In operation by 2015.

7. Sha Lo Tung
It has been earmarked as one of the 12 sites of ecological importance. The site is an important habitat for butterflies and fireflies. Under the government’s Public-Private Partnership scheme, the developer wants to build a columbarium with 60,000 niches, while establishing an ecological reserve.
Size: The columbarium is set to be four hectares in size.
Progress: The EIA has already been completed, but the Advisory Council on the Environment halted the decision.

8. Nam Shen Wai
Another spot for the Public-Private Partnership scheme. The developer is planning to build 1,600 housing units, including 600 Home Ownership Scheme flats, in the southern part. It also wants to build elderly care homes to increase the social care elements. The Northern part of Nam Shen Wai and Lut Chau will be designated as a conservation area. Green groups oppose the plan because parts of the wetland will be lost.
Size: 121 hectares.
Progress: The EIA has been completed. The application will be submitted to the Town Planning Board in September.

9. Fung Lok Wai
The area is also classified as one of 12 areas with significant ecological value. Five percent of the land will accommodate luxury homes, while 95 percent of land will be turned into a conservation area. Fung Lok Wai is very close to Mai Po.
Size: 4.1 hectares (development area).
Progress: Awaiting a decision from the Town Planning Board.

--
請加入反對新界東北融合計劃專頁：
http://www.facebook.com/defendntnorth