立場新聞 Stand News

拆解郊野公園發展機制

2018/8/10 — 19:17

粉嶺流水響郊野公園(資料圖片,來源:政府新聞處)

粉嶺流水響郊野公園(資料圖片,來源:政府新聞處)

【文:王福義(香港中文大學地理與資源管理學系客座教授)】

近日有不少評論談到發展郊野公園的機制,我希望提出一些個人的看法,供公眾參考。

一、時移世易

廣告

首先談談「時移世易」的觀點,就是說 40 多年前劃定郊野公園的理據不復存在或不再重要。由於社會變遷,郊野公園現時已失去其重要性,因而可以用適當方式改變土地用途。抱持這種看法的人認為「郊野公園」是浪費土地資源,與其讓土地「曬太陽」,不如用來建屋。這種觀念,是忽略了大自然的重要性和不了解保護區的本質。

現今世界的趨勢是保育自然環境,《生物多樣性國際公約》要求各國或城巿制訂「生物多樣性的策略和行動計劃」。香港在 2016 年訂立計劃,其中行動的第一條是保護及管理好現有的保護區。遠的不說,僅中國內地,近年致力推行「生態文明建設」,劃出生態紅線,政府官員不可踰越,不然會被追究終身刑責。內地在發展新區時,首先是保護生態和自然環境,例如雄安新區、天府新區和貴安新區。香港在這方面已經有很好的規劃,並立法保護,用「時移世易」作為入侵郊野公園的理據顯然站不住腳。

廣告

二、可加可減

「可加可減」機制,本是政府監管公營機構調整收費的方法,以不同指標規範公營機構的收費。在郊野公園和自然保護區的管理方面,這個機制並不適用。保護區需要一個穩定和持久的環境,絕不能隨時加加減減;變動太大或太多,都會對生態的穩定性和持久性構成不利影響,所以絕不應該說今年增加了多少公頃的郊野公園土地,便可以隨意減去一些。香港從 1979 年以後,郊野公園的面積整體上增加了約 3,000 公頃,約 7%;這些土地大都具極高的生態或地質價值,同時具有康樂及教育價值,並不影響都巿擴展,同時並沒有相應的減少。可見「可加可減」機制,並不適用於郊野公園。記得以前一位同事說過,郊野公園在香港應該是「在變幻莫測都市大海中,郊野公園是一個穩定不變的島嶼」(An island of stability in the sea of change)。如果郊野公園土地也要隨着社會無休止的需求而改變,大自然就很難繼續存在了。

三、整體無損

至於「整體無損」或「沒有淨減少」機制(No net loss),曾用於香港的濕地保育和發展。針對位於保護區以外的私人濕地,當發展商要在濕地建屋發展時,不可讓濕地的面積和功能有所減少,當中涉及濕地補償機制。然而,這個機制主要用於私人土地,而非法定的自然保護區;不然,保護區的面積和界線便會因種種不同理由而被「整體無損」機制改變,這將不利於保護區的穩定性、長遠性和可持續性。其實,在發展過程中應該採取「避免原則」(Avoidance Principle),意指首先把保護區列為「禁區 constrain」,盡量避開,而不是視為交換的條件之一。不然郊野公園將會支離破碎,破壞了其完整性和連續性。

四、防患未然

此外,尚有另外一個可以考慮的原則,就是「防患未然」或「預防原則」(Precautionary Principle)。根據這個原則,假如一些發展可能對環境或健康造成不良的影響,雖然未有充分證實,也要謹慎行動;簡單來說,就是寧願不做,也不可亂做。這個原則曾在香港環評中採用,這也是 1991 年由 35 名科學家在環境和健康方面奠定的原則, 成為著名的 Wingspread Census,翼展共識。香港已加入的《卡塔赫納生物安全議定書》(Cartagena Protocol) 也是以此原則用於基因改造食物。對發展郊野公園土地來說,我們應該採用這「防患未然」的「預防原則」。

五、別無選擇

當然,郊野公園也並非「寸土不讓」,郊野公園的土地以往也曾受發展影響而有減少的個案。其中包括 1993  年因修復石澳石礦場,改變部分石澳郊野公園界線;1995 年因興建三號幹線,因而減少大欖郊野公園 2 公頃土地。兩個個案的共同點就是「沒有其他可行的選擇」。在使用郊野公園土地建屋時,土地供應小組提出10 多種「郊野公園之外」的選項。所以並非別無選擇。必要時還要加上社會共識,東南堆填區就是一個好例子,雖然滿足了「別無選擇」的條件, 結果還是被立法會否定, 因為欠缺社會共識。

結語

趁着 「土地大辯論」,我提出一些使用郊野公園的土地個人的看法。萬一要用,要首先須證明「別無選擇」,再要採取「避免原則」和「防患未然」的機制;同時還要建立市民共識。不可只用「可加可減」或「沒有淨減少」的機制,這兩個機制只可視為在「山窮水盡」時的補償措施,不應貿然優先使用。

王福義教授(圖片來源:保衛郊野公園 Facebook)

王福義教授(圖片來源:保衛郊野公園 Facebook)

Rough translation:

Dismantling the development mechanism of country parks
By Prof. Wong Fook-yee
Visiting Professor, Department of Geography and Resource Management, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Recently, many comments have talked about the mechanism for developing country parks. I hope to put forward some personal views for public reference.

First, time to move the world

Let me first talk about the idea of "Shifting Shiyi", which means that the rationale for demarcating country parks more than 40 years ago no longer exists or is no longer important. Due to social changes, country parks have now lost their importance and can be used to change land use in an appropriate manner. Those who hold this view think that "country parks" are a waste of land resources. Instead of letting the land "bath the sun", it is better to build a house. This concept ignores the importance of nature and the nature of protected areas.

The current trend in the world is to conserve the natural environment. The International Convention on Biological Diversity requires countries or cities to develop “biodiversity strategies and action plans”. Hong Kong has a plan in 2016, the first of which is to protect and manage existing protected areas. Far away, in mainland China alone, in recent years, efforts have been made to promote "ecological civilization construction" and to draw an ecological red line. Government officials cannot be overstepped, or they will be prosecuted for life. When developing the new district, the mainland first protects the ecological and natural environment, such as Xiong'an New District, Tianfu New District and Gui'an New District. Hong Kong has already had good planning and legislative protection in this respect. It is obviously untenable to use "Time Shiyi" as the rationale for invading country parks.

Second, can be added or subtracted

The "additional and measurable" mechanism is the method used by the Government to regulate the adjustment of fees by public organizations. It regulates the charges of public organizations with different indicators. This mechanism does not apply to the management of country parks and nature reserves. Protected areas need a stable and lasting environment, and they must not be added or subtracted at any time; too much or too much change will adversely affect the stability and durability of the ecology, so it should not be said how many hectares of country parks have been added this year. Land, you can freely subtract some. Since 1979, the area of country parks has increased by about 3,000 hectares, about 7%. Most of these lands have high ecological or geological values. They also have recreational and educational value and do not affect the expansion of the Tudor. There is no corresponding reduction. It can be seen that the "addition and reduction" mechanism does not apply to country parks. I remember a former colleague who said that country parks in Hong Kong should be "an island of stability in the sea of change" in Hong Kong. If the country park land also changes with the endless needs of society, nature will hardly continue to exist.

Third, the overall lossless

As for the "no loss" or "no net loss" mechanism, it has been used for wetland conservation and development in Hong Kong. For private wetlands located outside the protected area, when the developer wants to develop a wetland, the area and function of the wetland should not be reduced, including the wetland compensation mechanism. However, this mechanism is mainly used for private land, not a statutory nature reserve; otherwise, the area and boundary of the protected area will be changed by the "whole-loss" mechanism for various reasons, which will not be conducive to the stability of the protected area. , long-term and sustainable. In fact, the "Avoidance Principle" should be adopted in the development process, which means that the protected area is first listed as a "constrained area" and avoided as much as possible, rather than as one of the conditions for exchange. Otherwise, the country parks will be fragmented, destroying their integrity and continuity.

Fourth, prevent problems

In addition, there is another principle that can be considered, that is, "precautionary principle" or "precautionary principle". According to this principle, if some developments may have adverse effects on the environment or health, they should be prudent if they are not fully confirmed; in short, they would rather not do it or do it. This principle was adopted in the Hong Kong EIA. This was also the principle laid by 35 scientists in the environment and health in 1991. It became the famous Wingspread Census, the wingspan consensus. The Cartagena Protocol, to which Hong Kong has acceded, is also used for genetically modified foods. For the development of country park land, we should adopt this "precautionary principle" of "precautionary measures".

Five, no choice

Of course, the country parks are not "inconsistent". The land in the country parks has been affected by development and has been reduced. This included the redevelopment of the Shek Oi Quarry in 1993 to change the boundary of the Shek O Country Park. In 1995, the Route 3 was built to reduce the 2 hectares of Tai Lam Country Park. The commonality between the two cases is that "there is no other viable option." In the use of country parks for land development, the Land Supply Team has proposed more than 10 options outside the "Country Parks". So there is no alternative. If necessary, social consensus should be added. The southeast landfill is a good example. Although the conditions of "no choice" have been met, the result is still denied by the Legislative Council because of the lack of social consensus.

Conclusion

Taking advantage of the "Land Debate", I put forward some personal views on the use of land in country parks. In order to use it, we must first prove that "there is no choice", and then we must adopt the mechanism of "avoiding the principle" and "preventing the problem"; at the same time, we must establish a consensus among the citizens. It is not necessary to use only the mechanism of "can be reduced or not reduced" or "no net reduction". These two mechanisms can only be regarded as compensation measures in the "sufficient situation" and should not be used rashly.

 

原刊於保衛郊野公園 Facebook 專頁

發表意見