by Civic Exchange

Our Place – Our Time Hong Kong’s Unique Asset: Our Rural Land 我們的地方我們的時間

香港獨特的資產－鄉郊土地

November 2006 Civic Exchange is a non-profit public policy think tank that undertakes research on issues important to local and regional communities in and around Hong Kong. In early 2006 a meeting of members of the Living Islands Movement was held, facilitated by Civic Exchange. The aim of the meeting was to articulate a vision for the future of Lantau Island, and to identify the issues that needed to be thought through in order to achieve this vision. Following this initial meeting, members realised that many of the problems Lantau faces in creating a sustainable future are common to all of Hong Kong's rural lands. The process of coming together to discuss these issues in itself illustrates one of the powerful ways in which community groups can make a positive contribution to healthy civic debate on the future of Hong Kong. We hope that this debate will also contribute to government policy-making. The authors of this report are the Living Islands Movement (LIM) and Civic Exchange. We are grateful to the many people who provided useful comments along the way. We are also heartened by the support provided by other local organisations and individuals. A summary of organisations and individuals who endorse this report, including their personal statements, are included in Appendix A. That the initial three-hour facilitated meeting gave rise to a wider vision, far beyond members' initial expectations, shows that these processes are a powerful way to determine policies and resolve conflicts. LIM holds that these kinds of meetings are vital for the sustainable development of Hong Kong. Both LIM and Civic Exchange have long held that effective community involvement in government decision making can only be achieved by facilitation. LIM has repeatedly urged government to use facilitation in public consultation, instead of the traditional 'Town Hall' meeting which the LIM regards as largely counter-productive. The Council for Sustainable Development, in its first public consultation exercise, has shown how facilitation in public consultation can be used effectively. This briefing paper forms part of Civic Exchangeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ongoing work on sustainable planning, environment and conservation, and is supported by "Designing Hong Kong", a group focused on developing and promoting Hong Kong as a sustainable city. The paper specifically seeks to raise awareness of the value of Hong Kongâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rural lands, and of the need for comprehensive planning for their future development so that they may continue to play important part in the diversity, economy and health of Hong Kong. For further information about this report or related matters please contact: Civic Exchange Room 701 Hoseinee House 69 Wyndham Street Central Tel: 2893-0213, Fax: 3105-9713 Email: cloh@civic-excange.org Please visit us at: www.civic-exchange.org Photos on front cover: Pui O village and beach, copyright Paul Melsom Lantau Peak from Lantau Trail, copyright Neil McLaughlin

二零零六年十一月思匯政策研究所是一個非牟利公共政策智囊組織，對本港及其相隣地區的一些重要問題進行研究。 2006 年初，在思匯政策研究所協調下，島嶼活力行動的成員舉行了一次會議。是次會議旨在為大嶼山的未來勾劃一個願景，並且找出達至這願景所需要考慮的各種問題。經過這次初步會議後，各成員都發覺，為大嶼山創造可持續發展將來時所面對的眾多問題，其實也正就是香港所有鄉郊土地同樣需要面對的問題。大家一起討論這些問題，這過程本身便是其中一個有效的方法讓社會上不同的組織就香港的未來進行有建設性的民間辯論。我們希望這種辯論亦有助政府制定政策。本報告書由島嶼活力行動和思匯政策研究所共同撰寫。我們感謝在此期間一直給予我們寶貴意見的各方人士。我們亦對一些本港機構和個別人士的支持表示謝意。我們也把推薦本報告書的機構和個別人士的資料及聲明載於附錄甲。上述提及的三小時初步會議擴闊了大家的視野，成果遠遠超過眾人原先的期望。這說明了公開討論其實是制定政策和解決分歧的有效方法。島嶼活力行動認為，這類會議對香港的持續發展非常重要。島嶼活力行動和思匯政策研究所一直都認為，只有通過促導（ facilitation ），社會人士才能有效地參與政府的決策。島嶼活力行動也曾多次促請政府，以促導方式諮詢公眾，取代傳統的「會堂」式會議，因為該種會議會產生反效果。可持續發展委員會在首次諮詢公眾時，已證明促導工作是可以有效地用於公眾諮詢的。本報告書是思匯政策研究所在可持續規劃、環境和保育方面所做的部分工作，已獲 Designing Hong Kong支持。（ Designing Hong Kong是一個專注發展和推動香港成為一個可持續發展城市的組織。）本報告特別希望大家認識到香港鄉郊土地的價值，以及在將來發展這些土地時需要為它們進行全面規劃，使鄉郊土地繼續在香港的多元化發展、經濟及健康這幾方面作出貢獻。如欲索取本報告書或相關資料，請聯絡：思匯政策研究所中環雲咸街 69 號賀善尼大廈 701 室電話 : 2893-0213 傳真 : 3105-9713 電郵 : cloh@civic-exchange.org 請瀏覽 : www.civic-exchange.org

封面相片：貝澳村及海灘，版權為 Paul Melsom所有。由鳯凰徑遠眺鳯凰山，版權為 Neil McLaughlin所有。

Our Place – Our Time Hong Kong's Unique Asset: Our Rural Land

Hong Kong's beautiful and diverse natural assets must be conserved and managed in order to ensure our future prosperity and high quality of life. The administrative and legal framework for planning, preservation, development and management must be amended to enhance the value of our natural assets: our rural land. Processes that encourage public participation and new systems for identification, classification, ownership and appreciation of Hong Kong's unique natural assets are urgently needed. Contents 1. An Overlooked Value: The Geographical Uniqueness of Hong Kong 2. Hong Kong's Past Development Drivers 3. A Need for a New Perspective 4. An Example, Lantau - Where are We Heading? 5. Principles for the Future 6. Our Vision of Hong Kong's Rural Land 7. The Way Ahead

1. An Overlooked Value: The Geographical Uniqueness of Hong Kong As the gateway to the Pearl River Delta, Hong Kong is widely recognised as an important centre of communications and commerce in Asia and has come to be known as ‘Asia’s World City’. It is a less well-known fact that Hong Kong's location – between China and the open sea, and close to the equator – means that it has a diversity of trees, flowers, birds, insects and marine life unique in China and the world. Further details of Hong Kong's biodiversity are set out in Appendix B. All world-class cities now recognise that 'green lungs' are an essential complement to the urban core. In Hong Kong, these green spaces are closer to urban areas than in most cities of comparable size. People do not have to travel far to enjoy them. Hong Kong can claim to be more than ‘Asia's world city’: it is ‘the world’s unique green city’, and possibly China's greenest. A better description of Hong Kong is “a national treasure of China”. If the current trajectory continues and our land is devoured through piecemeal development, a priceless asset will be destroyed forever. Future generations may hold us to account for allowing this to happen. Further, Hong Kong will face increasing challenges to its pre-eminence among Asian cities as other cities in the region grow. Seoul and Singapore have put in place comprehensive development policies that spur economic growth while giving priority to quality of life issues such as pollution reduction and the creation of green spaces. As the regional economy takes off and other Asian cities compete to be economic centres, Hong Kong will be set apart increasingly by emphasis on its geographical uniqueness – which comes predominantly from the proximity of residential and commercial areas to unspoiled rural land – in attracting people to work, live, and visit.

Our Place – Our Time Hong Kong's Unique Asset: Our Rural Land

2. Hong Kong's Past Development Drivers Hong Kong exists because it was a natural harbour for European traders in the 19th century. The shorelines were developed first, and development then spread further into Hong Kong Island and Kowloon. Roads were built, and settlements located away from Hong Kong's harbour grew. More recently, with expanded rail and improved roads, these early settlements have become large satellite towns. The spaces in between are a mixture of open country, urban sprawl and unplanned accumulations of houses resulting from the ‘small house’ policy. While the development pattern of the past fitted the purpose of building ample infrastructure quickly to support fast-growing economic activity, there was no overarching vision of how to make the most of Hong Kong's assets, both natural and man-made. Balancing these assets is necessary to enable continued economic growth and improved quality of life. Today, we live in a place that is a mixture of: •

a highly concentrated central domain where people work and live;

•

places for people to live that are either close to their work or accessible in a short time;

•

a terrain of mountains and sea that provides a constant backdrop to that life;

•

rural areas partly unspoiled and partly despoiled; and

•

areas of 'untouched' rural land, much of which is readily accessible.

This 'untouched' rural land accounts for 70% of our land area including, among others, country parks, villages, green belts, protected coastal areas, and conservation areas. The majority is spread over the outlying islands, Sai Kung and other rural parts of the New Territories. It remains untouched partly because much of it is protected by laws and policies; and partly because it is a hostile environment for development. Prior to 1997, Hong Kong's rural land was designated as 'Crown Land’ (belonging to the Monarch). Post-1997, it has been referred to as 'Government Land'. Whilst the legal status of the land has not changed, there is now a perception that the people of Hong Kong have more control over it and expect their government to act accordingly. 1 Our history of development has brought us to the present situation, in which the values of a wealth-focused generation; reliance on land-sale revenue; a growing population; and infrastructure investment have increasingly driven development of our rural land.

3. A Need for a New Perspective Conditions in Hong Kong are changing and our urban planning must change with the times. Relevant factors include personal demands for more living space, changing values relating to open public spaces and a reversal of population growth. Hong Kong is no exception to the norm in that we are living in the middle of a radically changing world. All cities should have processes in place that allow them to better understand future challenges and the changing values of their people.

We no longer live in "Borrowed Place, Borrowed Time": the title of Richard Hughes' iconic book. It is now ours to have and to cherish, hence the title of this paper.

Our Place – Our Time Hong Kong's Unique Asset: Our Rural Land

Some of these changes include: •

the halting and even reverse of population growth;

•

the increasing accessibility and density of areas to the north of Hong Kong's border;

•

competition from the increasing number of shipping centres and airports along the southern coast of China;

•

changes to established notions of economic growth, including the tourist industry, due to increase in oil prices;

•

increasing interest from residents and tourists in eco-tourism, fuelled by concerns about human impact on our natural and social environment;

•

an increasing awareness that the ‘quality of life’ is important;

•

the introduction of a 5-day week by the government that will inevitably spread to other sectors;

•

an increasing awareness, largely brought on by the air pollution and the SARS epidemic, that a healthy environment is important; and

•

an increase in demand for larger personal living areas.

None of these are trivial, but together they represent a cusp in the path of change to which we have become accustomed. Whilst in the past ‘development’ has simply meant ‘building’, it now has a much more comprehensive meaning in developed nations. The purpose of this paper is not to study the whole spectrum of likely disruptions, stressors and value changes that lie ahead for the whole of Hong Kong, but to find a focus; move to understand new challenges, and gain consensus on a new perspective for our remaining rural land.

4. An Example: Lantau - Where are We Heading? On Lantau Island, the last 15 years have seen the encroachment of the airport, building of a new town, and many other commercial developments and proposals. The founding of the Lantau Development Task Force (LDTF) to fast-track developments indicates that the government is habituated to the past mode of piecemeal development, without consideration of Lantau's inherent value to Hong Kong and Southern China. The LDTF’s report, the ‘Concept Plans” for Lantau, was not preceded by any consideration or consultation of an overarching development policy. Nor have these Concept Plans been put into the context of a vision for the whole of Hong Kong as it moves into the future. The concepts proposed in the LDTF's report are a string of unrelated notions that do not take into account all the needs of Hong Kong or Lantau communities. Meanwhile, many issues are ignored, such as: •

the economic decline of the local communities of Lantau;

•

the exit of young people because of the lack of jobs and amenities for younger people;

•

the run-down condition of many villages and widespread dumping of rubbish;

•

the need for revision of the small house policy, which has created an unsightly and unhealthy urban sprawl;

•

the lack of policy and action relating to the public acquisition of land forming the

Our Place – Our Time Hong Kong's Unique Asset: Our Rural Land

environmental and cultural heritage of Hong Kong; •

public works based on standards and guidelines more suited to the urban environment than to rural and untouched areas;

•

the need for an in-depth study to determine what economic benefits could be wrought from sympathetic and sustainable developments in the rural lands together with protection of 'untouched' lands; and

•

the role of Lantau as a green belt separating Hong Kong from the increasingly polluted manufacturing hub of Shenzhen and the extended Pearl River Delta region.

There is no broad vision. The report continues the trajectory of the past: piecemeal physical development based only on commercial and engineering considerations; and lowest-commondenominator solutions resulting from an iterative planning process in which different government departments pursue narrow and often conflicting policy interests. It is this kind of planning that has brought Hong Kong's urban areas to where they are today. Efficient and financially attractive as this kind of development planning may be in the short term, it can not continue. We reached a stage in our development at which ignoring the issues set out above will create a serious decline in our life and our economy. The preservation of Lantau, with its vast 'untouched' rural land, will be an essential ingredient in the future quality of life in Hong Kong.

5. Principles for the Future It is increasingly obvious that we have reached a tipping point in Hong Kong's development. The piecemeal approach of the past is no longer sufficient to cater to the needs of current and future generations of Hong Kong citizens. We need to reassess the values upon which previous development plans were based. We need to consider what values citizens now hold, and decide how these can be integrated into development plans. This process will inevitably have a strong impact on Hong Kong's rural and 'untouched' lands.

6. Our Vision of Hong Kong's Rural Land Our vision of Hong Kong's rural land areas includes:

an appreciation of the immeasurable contribution of Hong Kong's rural land areas to the physical and mental well-being of our community, which is essential to all communities that seek to preserve and enhance their quality of life;

the recognition that, at a time when the Central Government professes the need to protect local environments nationwide, HK's countryside is a unique and irreplaceable asset;

a belief that in a world and a region which is now consuming more than the sustainable natural capital available, Hong Kong's rural lands must be preserved;

the recognition that Hong Kong's rural lands provide an essential training and educational ground for younger generations to learn about and appreciate the benefits of a natural environment;

a conviction that the values and practices which have driven Hong Kong development since its inception, and which have as their base the consumption of these natural assets,

Our Place – Our Time Hong Kong's Unique Asset: Our Rural Land

are not appropriate for these remaining rural land areas;

a belief that the ‘money making at all costs’ paradigm must now give way to a 'sustainable wealth' paradigm, where 'wealth' is considered in its broader sense. This will lead to the development of policies and practices that create a presumption for the conservation and preservation of the remaining rural land areas, waters and coastline of Hong Kong.

We consider these concepts not only to be a matter of prudent ecological and landscape conservation, but to be a necessity for the future well-being, prosperity and quality of life of the people of Hong Kong.

7. The Way Forward We propose the following two Areas of Focus and six steps for Further Action regarding our rural land. Areas of Focus: •

Future planning must be holistic, strategic (overall Hong Kong, within the PRD, and within China), and long-term. Laws, procedures and systems for planning, preservation, development and management should be adjusted or created to achieve these goals;

•

A culture of caring for the land of Hong Kong, the ecology and the environment should be fostered and encouraged within the government and the community.

Further Action: 1. An assessment of Hong Kong's real economic, environmental and social needs should be made, and a vision for future development defined for broad and in-depth discussion by all stakeholders in the whole community; 2. Existing and past problems in planning, preservation, development, and management of rural land should be identified and addressed. For example: are existing planning and development policies adequate? Are they meeting the community’s needs? Do they employ a comprehensive understanding of development? What kind of communities, with their own micro-economy and culture, do we want to build? What are the future needs of Hong Kong for agriculture? What has been the impact of individual policies, such as the small house policy? What obstacles and conflicts of interests arise from different authorities governing different aspects of our rural land and natural assets? 3. Existing natural assets should be identified and catalogued; threats identified; and options for their protection tabled for discussion. Does Hong Kong understand what its carrying capacity is? 4. An overarching planning and development policy should be determined to guide future development. New principles, standards and guidelines must be created for rural land to guide all aspects of planning, development, farming and works; 5. A set of objective economic, environmental and social parameters should be developed and included in the assessment of future projects. Proper value must be awarded to natural attributes, including existence value. Expert help should be engaged in environmental assessment and planning; Nature conservation, respect for nature and the part that the land plays in life should form part of school curriculum. Our rural land belongs to the next generation, and it is our responsibility to teach them how to care for it.

Our Place â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Our Time

Appendix A

Organisations and individuals who endorse this Report, including their comments ORGANISATIONS Ark Eden Ark Eden supports the Rural Lands Report. The remaining rural land of Hong Kong needs to be preserved and enhanced for future generations. Jenny Quinton Director Association for Tai O Environment and Development In respect of sustainable development in rural areas, we have the following proposals for the government: 1. To conduct a comprehensive and systematic general survey and research on the ecology and culture in the undeveloped countryside and outlying islands so as to obtain a full picture of the natural ecology and cultural values therein before making a decision on conservation or development strategy. In this way, the question of inestimable ecological and cultural destruction being revealed only after development could be avoided. 2. To redress the trend of political monopoly present in rural areas to allow the later arrived inhabitants to share rights with the indigenous inhabitants and to make contributions, such as by increasing the number of elected seats for District Councils and reducing the number of appointed and ex-officio district councillors, and by conducting extensive consultation among local people and organisations on district development for the formulation of a fairer and more open policy. 3. To conduct immediate review on existing rural and environmental ecological issues as soon as problems emerge so as to prevent them from worsening. There are issues which demand immediate attention, like burials and hill fires commonly-seen in rural areas, gradual vanishing of Cheung Sha Beach in Lantau, ecological and environmental destruction caused by Tai O Development Phase 1, and environmental destruction caused by Tung Chung development and Po Lin Monastery in Lantau, etc. â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Strong Governanceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; could only mean to address these issues immediately. Besides, the government should meet people from all sectors for a regular discussion on rural development strategies rather than formulating a set of development strategies unilaterally beforehand as in the case of the development strategy for Sha Tau Kok. Ms. HO Pui Han Chairperson Coalition on Sustainable Tourism Hong Kong's natural assets - when managed and preserved well and in due regard of their limited carrying capacity - are a treasure trove of opportunities for leisure and tourism. Andrew Thomson Chief Executive Officer, Business Environment Council Secretariat, Coalition on Sustainable Tourism

Our Place – Our Time

Appendix A

Organisations and individuals who endorse this Report, including their comments Designing Hong Kong The time has come for Hong Kong to recognize the value of our natural and rural assets in enhancing our unique positions: 'Asia's World City', 'China's greenest city', and 'the cultural and business district of the Pearl River Delta'. We call for a comprehensive plan to pro-actively preserve our natural and rural assets, and to differentiate the standards, rules and procedures which guide the development of rural areas from those which guide development of our urban areas. Peter H.Y. Wong Co-convenor EagleOwl On Lantau I endorse Civic Exchanges Rural Land Report and I ask the HKSAR Government to conserve and use Lantau’s natural resources wisely for future generations. I personally believe that every child in Hong Kong should be able to identify at least 10 native trees, 10 Native plants and 10 native butterflies. Paul Melsom Owner, Horticulturalist, Eco-educator Friends of the Earth (HK) Friends of the Earth (HK) is generally in agreement with the arguments and recommendations in this report and hopes that it will lead to further discussion and consensus based solutions in relation to the issues highlighted. We shall take a sustainable approach to manage and protect our rural lands for our future generations. Edwin Lau Acting Director Green Lantau Association The Green Lantau Association (GLA) is delighted to endorse this paper. For too long Hong Kong has largely viewed its rural hinterland as a vast and inexhaustible land bank for ‘development’. If it had not been for the energetic and singular efforts of Sir Murray MacLehose in establishing our Country Parks, the depredations may have been far worse. As those who love our countryside well know, Hong Kong offers a wealth of scenic landscapes, and an immense bio-diversity. This is not confined to the not largely protected uplands but also to the former fields and farming areas, cut by lowland streams, and dotted with fung shui groves. It also comprises a spectacular coastline, almost wholly unprotected, of stunning beaches, majestic headlands, and rocks of huge antiquity. It is perhaps understandable that our forebears looked upon this hinterland as a focus for development. Only 40 years ago Hong Kong was accepting overseas charitable help for internal refugees as evidenced by the many Round Table (and other) charity villages dotted around. Many people lived in sub-standard housing in old boats or squatter

Our Place â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Our Time

Appendix A

Organisations and individuals who endorse this Report, including their comments villages. Public housing was in its infancy. There were no cross harbour tunnels, no container port, and the New Territories was accessed by a narrow two-lane road and a single track railway. And our population was burgeoning, doubling in 30 years. Development then meant bringing livelihood issues up to first world standards and it was both desirable and necessary. It was also a recipe for economic wealth with full employment for all. Today we have achieved first world status, the squatter villages have gone, and our infrastructure is amongst the most advanced in the world. Furthermore our population growth has shrunk dramatically. We are at that most fortunate stage of having no urgent issues to attend to. We can and should pause to take stock, particularly of our precious rural resources. The headlong urge to â&#x20AC;&#x153;developâ&#x20AC;? must stop and we must reassess our priorities. This Paper sets out a vision for our rural land and the steps necessary to achieve that. We in GLA share that vision and the imperatives set out, and urge the administration to embrace them. Mr. Clive Noffke Member Hong Kong Outdoors I wish to endorse the arguments presented in the paper, including the fact that "Hong Kong's countryside is a unique and irreplaceable asset"; also that we need holistic, strategic planning, and should foster a culture of caring for the environment, both within the government and within the community. Indeed, the paper's aims would seem similar to those the Hong Kong Government outlined in Agenda 21, and the HK government's laudable aims for sustainable development. For example: as our Chief Executive Mr Donald Tsang told the Legislative Council on 23 October 2002 (when he was Chief Secretary for Administration): "sustainable development demands that we seek better ways of living and working that enable us to lead healthy, fulfilling, economically secure lives, while preserving the environment and the future welfare of our people. In short, it is about improving the quality of lives for ourselves and future generations." These are fine words indeed. However, "preserving the environment" does not appear to be the government's priority. As the paper indicates, plans for Lantau could result in major environmental damage. Elsewhere, too, we see some important places are under threat, including the Frontier Closed Area, the Soko Islands. For the Frontier Closed Area, the government has said the environment will be protected, but produced no details on how this will be achieved, whilst producing development plans. Hong Kong is indeed special, environmentally. How many other "world cities" rival our geographical setting? How many others have such networks of world-class hiking trails on their doorsteps, or can boast such impressive biodiversity, including endemic species as well as species that are globally endangered? Perhaps no other major city can boast such a combination.

Our Place â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Our Time

Appendix A

Organisations and individuals who endorse this Report, including their comments We indeed need sound, thoughtful, holistic planning in order that Hong Kong continue to prosper, whilst retaining its superb natural assets. Dr Martin Williams Founder WWF Hong Kong WWF agrees with the proposals in particular the necessity for our Government to take a holistic approach to Hong Kong's development within the context of conserving the natural environment. The proposition is not impossible, but it is necessary. Hong Kong is a city with a highly developed economy and now is the time for our Government to avoid the trap of piece meal approaches to development to avoid presenting future generations with an unsustainable natural environment resulting in an unsustainable economic environment. Eric Bohm Chief Executive Officer

INDIVIDUALS Mr. Thomas Bauer, Assistant Professor, Programme Leader BScC Hotel/Tourism Management, School of Hotel and Tourism Management, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Please record my full support for the protection of the rural values of Hong Kong for the benefit of Hong Kong residents and tourists. Ms. Loy HO, LANTAUPOST Rural land is our hope for Hong Kong's sustainable future as it will allow Hong Kong to maintain and return to her original culture and natural beauty. Let us work together. Lawrence Tsui, Member Coalition on Sustainable Tourism I support the general thrust of your paper and believe that the practice of Responsible Tourism under the principles of Sustainable Development, is a healthy development in our rural areas. I therefore support the stance of the Coalition on Sustainable Tourism that "Hong Kong's natural assets - when managed and preserved well and in due regard of their limited carrying capacity - are a treasure trove of opportunities for leisure and tourism." It is vital to bring the local villagers, landowners, rural communities and developers on side as partners to work towards the common good, through meaningful stakeholder dialogues base on goodwill, understanding and equitable treatment. Further actions should include organisational framework for those dialogues and implementation of visions. However, little can be achieved without top level policy support of Government to facilitate genuine Sustainable Development plans from the bottom up.

Our Place – Our Time

Appendix B

Summary of Hong Kong’s Natural Assets Hong Kong is a small region of China, 65 km wide and 40 km long, with a population 6.87 million. Despite its small area and the fact that is has one of the highest population densities in the world, Hong Kong boasts incredibly rich and surprisingly diverse flora and fauna. It is located at the northern limit of the distribution of tropical Asian flora, and is the only region in the world where tropical and temperate species merge without some form of natural barrier (such as ocean, mountain or desert) separating them. Hong Kong's habitats are of great scientific significance. Hong Kong has 21 Country Parks and three Special Areas, covering 41,320 hectares or 40% of Hong Kong’s total land area. It is in these Country Parks that many small hill streams can be found, draining steep ravines rich in low trees and flowering shrubs. This natural landscape fascinates visitors. Hong Kong has:

400 known native species of tree (as compared with 33 in the United Kingdom). Hong Kong Island alone has more plant species than the United Kingdom;

2,124 known native species of flora (as compared with 30,000 in all of China, and 240,000 in whole world);

6,411 species/ subspecies of insects;

291 native species of butterfly (as compared with 55 in the UK and 17 in New Zealand);

2,200 species of moth, (as compared with 21,194 in all of China);

121 native species of dragonfly (as compared with 169 in Taiwan and 741 in all China);

458 species of resident and natural migratory birds, 124 of which breed in Hong Kong;

102 species of amphibians and reptiles;

84 species of hard coral (more than the Caribbean including 3 which are new to science);

Hong Kong Corals form "Incipient Reefs" and there is only one other location in Malaysia recorded with a similar reef structure. Furthermore the corals of Hong Kong extend into western waters all of the way down to the Soko Islands (almost at the mouth of the Pearl River) and there are at least two colonies of the hard coral species Plesiastrea versipora in Hong Kong waters that are over 2,000 years old and still alive today.

26 species of soft coral, one that is new to science; and

Over 300 coral reef associated fish species.

To put these comparisons in context, Hong Kong’s land area is 3.4% of Taiwan, 0.45% of the UK, 0.012% of China and 0.41% of New Zealand.

Sources Ecological data details was extracted from a report entitled “Ark~ Eden - a vision for sustainable development on Lantau”, March 2005 (available at: http://www.hkoutdoors.com/lantau-news/ark~eden.html) and through personal correspondence with experts, October 2006. Marine data details were derived from: - Field Guide to Hong Kong Corals, Agriculture Fisheries and Conservation Department, HKSAR Government, 2005 - Western Mapping Project, Oceanway Corporation 2002 - Hong Kong Cave project, Hong Kong Natural History Museum - J.E.N. Veron - AIMS Australia (personal communication), 2002

我們的地方我們的時間香港獨特的資產－鄉郊土地

香港美麗而多樣化的天然資產必須受到良好的保育和管理，才可確保未來社會的繁榮和我們享有優質的生活。要提升鄉郊土地這天然資產的價值，規劃、保育、發展和管理這幾方面的行政和法律架構都需要被修訂。我們急切需要建立一個機制去鼓勵公眾參與，以及一個系統去鑒定、分類、擁有和欣賞香港這獨有的天然資產。

目錄 1.

被忽視的價值：香港獨特的地理環境

香港過往的發展動力

需要新角度

例子：大嶼山何去何從？

未來發展原則

香港鄉郊土地的願景

未來路向

1. 被忽視的價值：香港獨特的地理環境香港位處珠江三角洲的門戶，被廣泛視為亞洲的重要交通和商業樞紐，有「亞洲國際都會」之稱。可是很少人知道，香港的位置特殊，既處於中國和外海之間，又接近赤道，這裡生長了很多在中國以至世界都很罕有的樹木、花卉、雀鳥、昆蟲及海洋生物。附錄乙載有詳細資料，介紹香港的生物多樣性。今天所有世界級的城市已認識到，「綠肺」（ Green Lungs）是一個都市的重要組成部分。相比其他規模相若的城市，香港綠化空間的位置很接近市區，市民不需要長途跋踄，便可前往欣賞這些綠化的地方。香港不僅是一個「亞洲國際都會」，更是「世界獨特的綠色城市」。香港的綠化程度很可能是全中國最高的，在這方面香港可以被稱為「中國的國寶」。若我們讓香港現在的情況繼續惡化下去，任由土地被一些零碎不全的發展計劃不斷蠶食，我們最終會永遠失去這份無價的財產，而下一代亦會埋怨我們為什麼對這情況視若無睹。隨着亞洲區內各大城市發展，香港的卓越地位將面臨愈來愈大的挑戰。

一

我們的地方我們的時間香港獨特的資產－鄉郊土地首爾和新加坡已推行全面的發展政策，一方面務求令經濟增長，另一方面又優先處理如減少污染和增加綠化空間這些有關生活質素的問題。因應亞洲經濟起飛和其他亞洲城市互相競爭成為經濟中心，香港更應強調自己獨有的地理環境以突顯本身的獨特優勢，即是在住宅和商業區的毗鄰有大片未受破壞的鄉郊土地，以吸引更多人來港工作、生活和旅遊。

香港過往的發展動力

香港的出現源於在十九世紀香港是一個的天然海港，是歐洲商人用作經商的地方。香港的發展是沿着海岸線開始的，繼而伸展到港島和九龍。隨着道路的興建，居民便逐漸到遠離海港的地方聚居。到了後來，鐵路系統的伸延和道路得以改善，這些早期的聚居地方便發展成為大型的衛星市鎮。這些衛星市鎮之間有郊野、市區延伸地方、以及因「丁屋」政策而出現了一些未經規劃的屋群。香港過往的發展模式是為了急速建造大量基礎設施，以配合經濟活動的高速增長，但是對於如何善用香港的天然及人工資產這方面，過往的發展模式是沒有遠大的視野。要香港的經濟持續增長和我們的生活質素得以改善，我們必須在天然及人工資產兩方面取得平衡。今天，我們生活在其中的香港有以下的特點： •

市民生活和工作的地區高度集中；

•

市民的住所與其工作地方相當接近，又或可以在短時間內到達工作的地方；

•

這裡生活背靠群山，面向大海；

•

鄉郊地區有部分受到破壞，但部分尚存；以及

•

大部分「未開發」的鄉郊土地都很容易到達。

這些「未開發」的鄉郊土地佔全港土地面積的 70%，當中有郊野公園、鄉村、綠化帶、海岸保護區及自然保育區，它們大多分佈於離島、西貢及其他新界郊區。這些地區之所以未被開發，很大程度是因為受到法例和政策保護，亦有部份是因為客觀環境令開發困難。

在 1997 年前，香港的鄉郊土地被指定為「官地」（ Crown Land，屬英皇所有）， 1997 年後改稱為「政府土地」（ Government Land）。雖然土地的法律地位不變，然而社會上現在普遍認為，香港市民對土地的運用有更多的控制，並且期望政府跟從市民的意願去行事。2 2

Richard Hughes 曾以「借來的地方，借來的時間」（Borrowed Place, Borrowed Time）為其著作命名。現在這地方已屬於我們，我們應該珍惜這地方，故本報告書命名為「我們的地方，我們的時

二

我們的地方我們的時間香港獨特的資產－鄉郊土地我們目前的景況是由過往的發展所造成的。專注於創造財富的價值觀、過度依賴賣地收益、人口增長、以及基建投資等因素都促使鄉郊土地被大肆開發。

需要新角度

香港的情況不斷轉變，我們的城市規劃也應與時並進。相關的因素有：市民要求有更大的居住面積、市民對開放公共空間的價值觀改變了、以及本港人口增長的逆轉。我們生活在一個瞬息萬變的世界，香港也不例外。所有城市都有一套機制去清楚了解未來的挑戰和香港市民不斷改變的價值觀。

這些轉變有： •

本港人口增長停頓，甚至逆轉；

•

香港邊境以北地區交通日趨便利，人口日益稠密；

•

華南沿海地區航運中心和機場數目增多，引致競爭；

•

油價上漲，以往帶動經濟增長的行業，如旅遊業，已出現轉變；

•

隨着社會關注人類對自然和社會環境的影響，促使居民和遊客對生態旅遊漸感興趣；

•

市民日益認識到「生活質素」的重要；

•

政府實行 5 天工作周，其他機構無可避免地亦將效法；

•

空氣污染和沙士疫症引發市民認識到健康環境的重要；以及

•

愈來愈多人要求有更大的居住面積。

上述各點無不重要，這些轉變整體說明了我們習以為常的事情已經走上了一條改革的道路。過往觀念以為「發展」等如「建設」，但是現在已發展國家對發展這觀念有一套更全面的看法。本文並非研究香港整體當前面對的各式各樣紛擾、壓力或價值觀念的改變，本文只希望找到一個聚焦點，讓香港人了解自己所面臨的新挑戰，以及從一個新的角度為我們僅存的鄉郊土地達到共識。

間」（Our Place-Our Time）。

三

我們的地方我們的時間香港獨特的資產－鄉郊土地 4. 例子：大嶼山何去何從？過去 15 年，大嶼山興建了機場、新市填，也進行各種商業發展和建議計劃。政府成立一個大嶼山發展專責小組，加速發展大嶼山，但這只顯示政府習慣於舊有的零碎斬件發展模式，並沒有考慮到大嶼山對香港和南中國的固有價值。大嶼山發展專責小組在發表《大嶼山發展概念計劃》報告書前，並沒有就全盤發展政策進行過任何考慮或諮詢，也沒有把這概念計劃置於香港未來整體發展的願景去思考。大嶼山發展專責小組報告書所建議的概念，只是一連串互不相關的觀點，完全沒有顧及香港或大嶼山社群的整體的需要。現時被忽略的事項有： •

大嶼山本土社群的經濟衰落；

•

由於缺乏就業機會和康樂設施，年輕人逐漸遷出；

•

大部分村落失修，棄置垃圾到處可見；

•

需要檢討丁屋政策，該政策導致市區難看及不健康地伸延；

•

缺乏公眾徵用土地的政策和行動去為香港帶來一份環境和文化的遺產；

•

工務工程是基於一些更加適合用於市區環境，而不是鄉郊和未開發地區的標準及指引；

•

有需要進行深入研究，確定在鄉郊土地推行和諧及可持續發展政策和保護「未開發」土地會帶來何種經濟效益；以及

•

大嶼山作為綠化帶，把香港與污染日趨嚴重的深圳工業區和珠江三角洲擴展區分隔開去。

該《大嶼山發展概念計劃》報告書沒有廣寛的視野，只跟從過往的做法，單純地基於一般商業和工程的零碎觀念去考慮問題。不同的政府部門又糾纏於狹獈和時有矛盾的政策利益中，令規劃過程反覆無常，最終以一些各方皆首肯的最低標準方法去解決問題。正正就是這些不要得的規劃方程式，令香港市區落得今天如斯景況。這種發展規劃模式短期而言可能很快捷，也很有經濟吸引力，但是這模式並不能繼續下去。香港的發展已來到一個重要的階段，如再忽視上述問題，香港人的生活和經濟將要面臨大幅的倒退。保育大嶼山及其廣大的「未開發」土地，是保證香港未來生活質素的重要因素。

四

我們的地方我們的時間香港獨特的資產－鄉郊土地 5. 未來發展原則香港的發展愈來愈明顯地到達一個引爆點（ tipping point ），過往的零碎模式再不能夠應付這一代和下一代香港人的需要。我們需要重新評估過往發展計劃所依從的價值理念，同時也要考慮市民現有的價值觀，以決定怎樣將這些價值觀融入發展計劃中。這過程必然會對香港的鄉郊和「未開發」土地的計劃帶來巨大影響。

6. 香港鄉郊土地的願景我們對香港鄉郊土地的願景是：

認同香港鄉郊土地對市民的身心健康有無可估量的價值，這是所有努力保存和提升生活質素的社會必須要做到的；

當中央政府宣布需要保護全國各地環境的同時，我們須知道香港的郊野是一份獨一無二、無可取代的國家資產；

全世界、全亞洲目前所耗用的天然資源，較可用的可持續資源為多，故此我們要持有香港的鄉郊土地必須受到保育這一信念；

認同香港的鄉郊土地可為年輕一代提供重要的訓練和教育，以便學會認識和欣賞自然環境的好處；

相信過往以耗用天然資產來推動香港發展這種價值觀和行事方式已不再適用於僅存的鄉郊土地；

「不惜代價賺錢」的範例應被「可持續發展財富」的範例所取代，這裏所指的是廣義的「財富」。這範例會發展出一些前題為必須保育和保存香港僅存的鄉郊土地、水域和海岸線的政策和行事方式。

我們認為上述不單是悉心保育生態景觀的問題，也是港人未來福祉、繁榮和生活質素的必要條件。

7. 未來路向就鄉郊土地，我們提出兩個關注範疇及六項跟進行動。關注範疇： •

未來的規劃必須全面、具策略性（指香港整體、珠江三角洲內及整個中國內的策略）及長遠思維。有關方面必須調整或訂立規劃、保育、發展和管理這幾方面的法例、程序和制度以達致上述目標；

•

政府內部和社會都應培養和鼓勵一種關心香港土地、生態及環境的文化。五

我們的地方我們的時間香港獨特的資產－鄉郊土地

跟進行動： 1. 評估香港真正的經濟、環境和社會需要，訂立未來發展願景，讓整個社會的有關人士可作廣泛和深入的討論； 2. 認清和處理鄉郊土地在規劃、保育、發展和管理上現存和過去的種種問題，例如：現行規劃和發展政策是否足夠？是否符合社會需要？對發展有沒有全面了解？我們希望建設一個怎樣的社區（包括微觀的社區經濟及文化）？香港農業未來需要什麼？個別政策如丁屋政策曾帶來什麼影響？鄉郊土地和天然資產由不同機關管轄，這安排造成什麼障礙和利益衝突？ 3. 確定現有的天然資產，並加以分類，還要認清要面對的威脅和討論各個保護天然資產的方案。香港是否知道自己有多大的承受能力？ 4. 為未來發展路向制定全盤規劃和發展政策，並為鄉郊土地訂立新的原則、標準和指引，作為各項規劃、發展、農耕和工程的指引； 5. 制定客觀的經濟、環境和社會參數指標，將其納入日後發展項目的評估中。必須對天然環境因素給予適當的價值，包括其存在的價值。應聘請專家進行環境評估和規劃；學校課程應包含保育和尊重自然環境的教育，並應教導學生有關土地對我們生活的重要性。我們的鄉郊土地是屬於下一代的，我們有責任教導他們如何愛護鄉郊。

六

我們的地方，我們的時間附錄甲

推薦本報告書的機構和人士（包括他們的意見）

推薦機構 Ark Eden Ark Eden 支持這份鄉郊土地報告書。香港剩餘的鄉郊土地應受到保護和得到改善，以留給下一代享用。 Jenny Quinton Director

大嶼山環境及發展關注協會有關鄉郊地區的可持續發展，我們向政府提出下列方案： 1. 在決定保育或發展策略前，對尚未發展的郊區和離島進行全面和有系統的生態及文化的調查和研究，以全面了解這些地方的自然生態和文化價值。這樣便可避免在發展計劃落實後，才得悉有難以估計的生態和文化破壞。 2. 改變鄉郊地區政治被壟斷的局面，讓後來入住的居民與原居民享有同樣的權利，一起作出貢獻。例如增加區議會民選議席，減少委任及當然區議員的數目，以及就區內發展廣泛諮詢市民和本土組織，制定更公平、更公開的政策。 3. 當發現鄉郊和環境出現生態問題時，應立即進行檢討，以防止問題進一步惡化。有些問題必須立即處理，例如在鄉郊地區經常見到埋葬和山火、大嶼山長沙海灘逐漸消失、大澳第一期發展帶來的生態和環境破壞、大嶼山東涌發展及寶蓮寺對環境的破壞等問題。要「強政勵治」便須立即處理這些問題。此外，政府應會晤各界人士，定期討論鄉郊發展策略，而不是像發展沙頭角般，政府單方面制定發展策略。何佩嫻女士主席

可持續旅遊聯盟香港的天然資源只要得到妥善的管理和保護，以及其承受能力得到充份的考慮，它們其實蘊藏着無限的休閒和旅遊機會。譚安德商界環保協會行政總裁可持續旅遊聯盟工作小組秘書處

我們的地方，我們的時間附錄甲

推薦本報告書的機構和人士（包括他們的意見） Designing Hong Kong 香港擁有「亞洲國際都會」、「中國最綠化城市」和「珠江三角洲的文化商業區」的獨特地位。現在是時候讓我們明白香港的天然和鄉郊資產對鞏固這些獨特地位的價值。我們要求有一個全面的計劃去主動地保護我們的自然和鄉郊資產，以及為鄉郊地區建立一套有別與市區的發展標準、規劃和程序。黃匡源 Designing Hong Kong 的其中一名召集人

EagleOwl On Lantau 本人推薦思匯政策研究所的鄉郊土地報告書，促請香港特別行政區政府為我們的下一代，好好保育和善用大嶼山的天然資源。本人相信每一位香港的小孩子，至少也應該能辨認出十種本土樹木、十種本土植物和十種本土蝴蝶。 Paul Melsom 東主、園藝家、生態教育家

香港地球之友香港地球之友大體而言同意本報告書的論點和建議，我們希望這報告書能就其提及的問題帶來進一步討論，並達致建基於共識的解決方案。我們應以可持續發展的方向，去為下一代管理和保護我們的鄉郊土地。劉祉鋒署理總幹事

綠色大嶼山協會綠色大嶼山協會樂意推薦這份報告書。香港一直以來都視鄉郊土地為一個取之不盡、用之不竭的土地庫，可以作為「發展」之用。若非麥理浩爵士積極努力地去建立我們的郊野公園，今天的鄉郊必會遭受更嚴重的破壞。酷愛香港郊野的人士都知道，此地有許多怡人景色，並且物種繁多。這情況不僅出現在大部份未受保護的山嶺高地，從前農耕土地亦是如此，當中溪澗婉蜒，風水墓地散佈。香港郊野還有美麗絕倫的海岸線（差不多完全沒有受到保護）、迷人沙灘、壯觀海角，以及年代悠久的巨石。

我們的地方，我們的時間附錄甲

推薦本報告書的機構和人士（包括他們的意見）我們的前人視這片土地為發展重點或者是可以理解的。只在是四十年前，香港仍接受海外對本地難民的捐助，我們從鄉郊地上散佈著很多由慈善團體協助建立的村莊便可看到這種情況。當時有很多人居住在舊艇或寮屋這些標準以下的居所裏，而公共房屋仍在發展雛形。當時並沒有海底隧道，沒有貨櫃碼頭，前往新界只有一條狹窄的雙程行車路和一條單行線的鐵路。我們的人口迅速增長，在 30 年間增多兩倍。當時的發展是要把人民生計提升至世界一級的水平，這是值得追求和必須的，同時這也是製造經濟財富和全面就業的訣竅。今天，香港已達到世界一級城市的地位，寮屋已不再復見，我們的基建設施差不多是全球最先進的。此外，我們的人口增長大幅下調，我們有幸地到達一個沒有嚴重問題急需解決的階段，讓我們可以、及應該稍歇下來，去評估一下我們的情況，特別是我們寶貴的鄉郊資源。我們必須摒棄魯莽「發展」的做法，並重新思考我們想達到的目標的先後次序。這份報告書為我們的鄉郊土地訂出了願景和達至的步驟。綠色大嶼山協會贊同這些理念和做法，並促請政府接納其中的意見。 Clive Noffke 先生綠色大嶼山協會的成員

Hong Kong Outdoors 本人推薦這報告書的論點，包括「香港的郊野就是一份獨一無二、無可取代的資產」這一事實。我們需要全面和策略性的規劃，以及在政府內部和社會上培養一種關心環境的文化。事實上，本報告書的目的與香港政府在廿一世紀議程所列出的相若，亦與香港政府值得讚賞的可持續發展目標近似。例如行政長官曾蔭權先生（他當時為政務司司長）曾於 2002 年 10 月 23 日向立法會說：「可持續發展既鼓勵我們尋求更美好的生活和工作模式，讓我們過一個健康、豐足及經濟有保障的生活，但與此同時，亦要求我們致力保護環境和維護大眾未來的福祉。簡單來說，可持續發展是關乎改善我們和子孫後代的生活質素。」這些話說得漂亮，但政府卻未能顯示出真正以「保護環境」為其首要任務。如本報告書所述，政府在大嶼山的各項計劃將會大大破壞那裡的環境。我們亦看到其他重要的地方如邊境禁區、索罟群島也面臨威脅。就邊境禁區而言，政府說要保護那裏的環境，但當提出各種發展計劃的時候，卻沒提出周詳計劃說明如何去達至這目標。香港的地理環境真的很獨特，有多少個「國際都會」可在地理上與我們匹敵？有多少個地方擁有這些既網絡縱橫，又近在咫尺的世界級行山徑？又有多少地方可以誇口其生物多樣性，能擁有這麼多本土物種和世界瀕危的物種？也許沒有其他城市可以誇口說他們擁有這種綜合優勢。

我們的地方，我們的時間附錄甲

推薦本報告書的機構和人士（包括他們的意見）香港的確需要一些有效、考慮周全和全面的規劃，才可在繼續繁榮下去的同時，讓香港的豐富天然資產得以保留。 Dr Martin Williams 創辦人

世界自然（香港）基金會世界自然基金會認同這報告書的建議，特別是我們的政府必須在保護環境的前提下，以整體的策略去發展香港。這些建議不是天方夜譚，而是必須要做到的的。香港是一個經濟高度發展的城市，現在是時候政府應避免以斬件零碎的方式去發展，以免下一代承受了一個不可持續發展的天然環境，最終造成有一個不可持續發展的經濟環境。 Eric Bohm 行政總裁

個人推薦者鮑俊堂先生（香港理工大學酒店及旅遊業管理學院助理教授）本人全力支持保護香港的鄉郊資源，以保障香港居民和遊客的福祉。何來女士（《大嶼報》）鄉郊土地讓香港保存和重拾其原有文化和天然美，它是香港未來持續發展的希望。現在就讓我們一同努力吧！

Lawrence Tsui（可持續旅遊聯盟工作小組成員）本人支持這份報告書的整體觀念，並相信按照可持續發展原則去發展負責任的旅遊業，是我們的鄉郊地方的一種健康發展。本人所以支持可持續旅遊聯盟工作小組的立場，即「香港的天然資源只要得到妥善的管理和保護，以及其承受能力得到充份的考慮，它們其實蘊藏着無限的休閒和旅遊機會。」把村民、地主、鄉郊社群和發展商結成夥伴，讓相關利益人士本着公平互諒的原則，展開有意義的對話去追求共同的利益。些外，還要建立一個組織架構去進行對話，並實踐願景。不過，若果沒有政府高層政策的支持去協助推行真正的可持續發展的計劃，便不可能做出成績來。

我們的地方，我們的時間附錄乙

香港天然資產摘要香港是中國的一個小地區，寬 65 公里，長 40 公里，人口有 687 萬。香港雖然地小，卻是全世界人口最集中的地方之一，而且擁有異常豐富而多樣性的植物和動物群。香港位於熱帶亞洲植物群分佈範圍的北端，是世界上唯一能讓熱帶和溫帶物種共存，而且沒有天然屏障（如海洋、山脈、沙漠）阻隔的地區。香港的生態環境具有重大的科學價值。香港有 21 個郊野公園，三個特別地區，面積達 41,320 公頃，相當於香港總面積的 40%。這些郊野公園內有不少山溪，山谷也長滿了矮樹和開花的灌木。這些自然景象令遊人嘆為觀止。香港擁有：

400 種已知的本土樹木品種（英國有 33 種）。單是香港島的植物品種已較英國為多；

2,124 種已知的本土植物群（全中國有 30,000 種，全世界則有 240,000 種）；

6,411 個昆蟲品種／亞種；

291 個本土蝴蝶品種（英國有 55 種，新西蘭有 17 種） ;

2,200 個蛾品種（全中國有 21,194 種） ;

121 個本土蜻蜓品種（台灣有 169 種，全中國則有 741 種） ;

458 個留鳥和自然候鳥品種，其中有 124 種在香港繁殖；以及

102 個兩棲及爬蟲類動物品種；

84 個石珊瑚品種（多於加勒比海品種，包括 3 種為科學上的新發現）；

香港珊瑚形成的是「初形礁體」，現存紀錄只有馬來西亞的一個地方有類近的珊瑚礁。香港的珊瑚伸展至西面水域，遠至索罟群島（差不多到達珠江口）；香港水域內的石珊瑚群中，最少有兩個壽命達二千年以上，這是現今存活的多孔同星珊瑚群體；

26 個軟珊瑚品種，其中 1 種為科學上的新發現；

超過 300 個珊瑚魚品種。

為方便比較，香港的土地面積相等於台灣的 3.4%、英國的 0.45%、新西蘭的 0.41%，和中國的 0.012%。

資料來源生態資料數據節錄自：2005 年 3 月《Ark~ Eden - a vision for sustainable development on Lantau》報告（原文見http://www.hkoutdoors.com/lantaunews/ark~eden.html），及 2006 年 10 月親自與專家交流的結果。海洋數據資料取自：《Field Guide to Hong Kong Corals》，香港特別行政區政府漁農自然護理署，2005 《Western Mapping Project》， Oceanway Corporation 2002 《Hong Kong Cave project》， Hong Kong Natural History Museum J.E.N. Veron - AIMS Australia（個人通信往來），2002