今天是就大嶼山發展諮遞交意見的限期，盡了公民責任向委員會秘書處發了信件。
重點談香港眾多市民重視保育大嶼山的山明水秀，委員會必須視保育為發展一部份，而不應把保育看成發展的對立面，是「被平衡」的對象，又列舉原因指「經濟發展」說法與香港最新情況相悖，錯判形勢，不應成為發展策略的最高指導原則。
我忠告委員會，「使用」有自然和文化保育價值的地方時，必須尊重各地的價值所在，不應推動會破壞原有價值的活動，也不應像某些外國地方過度商業化以致最後把旅遊業搞死。
 |
| 在水中央的「東大嶼山都會區」 幾十萬人每天出入交通製造超多二氧化碳排放 |
我又花了較多篇幅說明所謂「東大嶼山都會區」絕不可行，原因很多：香港平原地多得很，填海取地相對非常貴和不值得，沒有人願意住在「水中央」，大量的日常交通造成高碳排放，有違香港在巴黎氣候協議下的減排責任，大量填海造成大面積海洋生態破壞無法補償，有違生物多樣性條約下的香港責任，以及全球暖化最新跡象顯示海平面上升的幅度恐怕比原來預計嚴重得多等，所以強烈建議委員會停止考慮這個想法。
我歡迎委員會有關改進郊野公園的說法，但是提醒他門在進行任何工程前，必須與市民好好溝通，理解他們的需要和看法，以免過度建設，好心做壞事，無意中把原本的美好風光搞爛。
* * * *
To: The
Secretariat, Lantau Development Advisory Committee
17/F., East Wing, Central Government Offices,
By e-mail: landac@devb.gov.hk
From: Lam
Chiu Ying
Adjunct
Professor, Geography & Resource Management Department
Re: Lantau
Development Consultation Response
Date: 30
April 2016
Vision
1.
Page
5 of the document Lantau Development Advisory
Committee First-term Work Report refers to “needs and expectations
of Hong Kong Society” and set the Vision as “balancing and enhancing development and conservation, with
a view to developing Lantau into a smart and low-carbon community for living,
work, business, leisure and study”. But
it has chosen to include “enhancing the conservation of our natural, cultural
and heritage resources” at the end of the paragraph as if an afterthought.
2.
The existence of a large body
of opinion in Hong Kong for the preservation of the pristine natural scenery
and the conservation of the invaluable ecology on Lantau Island Hong Kong
society”. Therefore “conservation”
should be part of the “development” process, and NOT framed as a factor against
“development”.
3.
It reflects a fundamental flaw
of the document - giving “development” the very narrow sense of “economic
development” or “GDP development”, which does not correspond with the
above-mentioned prevailing view that doing conservation well or better than now
is “development” in Lantau. In that
case, there is no antagonism between “conservation” and “development” and
so-called balance is a false concept.
4.
It is strongly recommended that
the Lantau Development Advisory Committee (LDAC) re-orientate its mindset to
align with the mainstream values of Hong Kong
society and treat “conservation” as an
integral part of “development”, and NOT as an enemy of development or an
afterthought.
Major
Planning Principles
Economy
and Livelihood
5.
Paragraph 2.3.1
“Economy and Livelihood” makes reference to the four Pillars viz. financial
services, tourism, trade and logistics and to the creation of jobs. This is presumably the ground for
recommendations for significant reclamations and land-use changes.
6.
This is unfortunately very much
out of tune with the latest developments in Hong Kong . Rapid growth in the number of tourists in
previous years has been replaced by rapid decline. Chinese goods which used to pass through Hong Kong are increasingly exported via its own ports and
airports, leading to long-term decline in the logistics industry.
7.
Furthermore, the latest report
on population policy indicated that the worry of Hong Kong
is the diminishing size of the working population which will mean insufficient
manpower to fill existing jobs soon.
Thus the creation of jobs is no longer a priority for Hong Kong .
Instead, what Hong Kong needs is a
re-structuring of its economy in which a smaller work force of higher
productivity would sustain the vibrancy of its economy.
8.
Taken together, it means that
this Principle is misguided by invalid assumptions and cannot possibly be the number one guiding principle for future Lantau “development”.
Nature
and Heritage Conservation
9.
Paragraph 2.3.2
“Nature and Heritage Conservation” treats nature and heritage as “valuable
resources” and advocates that they “should be suitably utilized for releasing
their potential for education, recreation and green tourism”. It is of critical importance that the word “valuable”
should NOT be interpreted in the narrow sense of “dollar value”. Any planned mode of utilisation should
fundamentally respect the intrinsic value of the respective places to the
people of Hong Kong . For example, paragliding at Shui Hau, a site
of ecological value (page 19 of the report) as well as of high scenic value would
not be respecting its intrinsic value.
10.
Paragraph 2.3.3
“Recreation and Tourism” refers “diversified multi-modal recreation and
tourism facilities to shape Lantau as a kaleidoscopic recreation and tourism
destination”. As the primary attraction
of Lantau is its pristine natural landscape and valuable ecology, it would be
wrong to introduce purely recreation facilities which bear no connection to
these characteristics of Lantau. An
artificial aqua park at Pui O/Chi Ma Wan (page 19 of the report) where rich
ecological resources are recognised would be an example of incompatibility and
indeed bad taste.
11.
These discussions serve to
illustrate that any proposed “utilization” must be critically examined against
potential corruption of the intrinsic values of the respective locations. Along this line, several of the proposed uses
on pages 19-21 are judged incompatible and should not be pursued. This is an aspect which the LDAC should
pursue with rigour in future deliberations.
12.
Paragraph 3.1.3
“East Lantau Metropolis as Long-term Strategic Growth Area” talks about the
formation of an artificial island around Kau Yi Chau and Hei Ling Chau as “smart,
innovative, livable, diversified and low-carbon ELM”. On page 9 of the report, it says that
government should consider it [the ELM] together with other development plans to
support the development of Hong Kong as a
whole”. This is
a correct viewpoint. Once the ELM is set
against the territorial background, it would immediately become clear that it
is highly misguided concept which should NOT be pursued. The reasons are:
i.
A vast amount of land in the
plains of Hong Kong which are much more
readily accessible by land transport remains un-developed. The priority of Hong Kong should be to develop such land resources. Such places are also much better connected to
existing urban areas and could be developed relatively quickly.
ii.
Existing land locations
would be much more preferred by the Hong Kong population owing to familiarity and their proximity to job opportunities and existing
community connections.
iii.
The dollar cost of
infrastructure and urban development on reclaimed land is much higher than
similar works on existing land. To go
for ELM is NOT smart at all. The government should NOT pursue the unduly
expensive ELM when cheaper alternatives exist.
iv.
An enormous amount of commuting
would arise if a population of half a million is settled on ELM in view of its
location. ELM is NOT low-carbon at all.
It would result in a disproportionate increase in the carbon footprint
of Hong Kong which is contrary to Hong Kong ’s
commitment to reduce its carbon dioxide emission in the context of the latest Paris Agreement.
v.
The vast amount of reclamation
will create havoc for the marine ecology in an extensive sea area. There is no way of finding compensation for such
big loss. Since the Convention on Biological Diversity has been extended to Hong Kong , building the ELM would inevitably result in disruptions
contrary to the Convention.
vi.
Global warming is leading to
accelerating sea-level rise. Hong Kong
Observatory has projected higher frequencies of storm surge in typhoon in the
coming decades. Latest scientific
findings are pointing towards the increasing potential of sea-level rise widely
exceeding the last projection of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate
Change. Considering the very large area
of ELM, every cm/metre of increased thickness to avoid future sea flooding translates
into millions or even billions of dollars. It is indeed foolish now to contemplate
reclaiming land from the sea when no
reliable projection of future sea-level could be made with certainty
desired by engineers.
13.
Taken together, seen in the
overall Hong Kong context, there are strong
grounds for shelving the ELM concept immediately. It is therefore recommended that the ELM be dropped from future deliberations of the
LDAC and Planning Department.
Country
Parks
14.
Paragraph 3.2.2
“Better Utilisation of Natural Resources” recommends “to increase the
attractiveness of country parks”. This
is strongly supported but a note of caution has to be sounded. Whatever works are to be carried out in this
connection, careful advance engagement of hikers and visitors should be
conducted, to avoid inadvertent disruption of good features in the country
parks that are dear to the heart of Hong Kong people.
Recreation
and Tourism
15.
Paragraph 3.4 “Recreation
and Tourism” refers to the wish to provide diversified recreation and
tourism facilities beyond shopping and providing “more opportunities to get up
close to nature”. This is a noble cause
deserving support.
16.
However, as discussed above,
the provision of physical facilities should pay respect to the intrinsic values
of the places. We must learn from the fatal mistakes of those failed tourist
destinations which killed tourist interest by over-ambitious physical
development and over-commercialisation to the extent the original values of the
destinations were lost.
17.
It is strongly recommend that
LDAC carefully re-evaluate the various items listed on pages 19-21 to
consider whether the proposed utilisation is incompatible to the intrinsic
values of the respective places.
Conclusions
18.
Conservation should be viewed
as an integral part of development, NOT a factor against development.
19.
The latest trend in tourist
number, the evolving scene in logistics and the decreasing size of working
population in Hong Kong indicate that the “Economy
and Livelihood” principle is misguided by invalid assumptions and cannot possibly be the number one
guiding principle for future Lantau “development”.
20.
The East Lantau Metropolis is a
seriously faulted concept and should be dropped from the planning process. Hong Kong ’s
commitments arising from the Paris Agreement and the Convention on Biological
Diversity as well as sea-level rise arising from climate change are major
factors supporting this recommendation.
21.
Improvement of country parks is
welcome but care must be exercised in execution, to avoid inadvertent
disruptions unwelcome by the public.
22.
LDAC should carefully
re-evaluate the proposed uses listed on pages 19-21 of the report. Uses which are judged incompatible with the
intrinsic values of the respective places should not be pursued.
Lam Chiu Ying
