2005年6月1日 星期三

長春社 2004-05年 主席致辭

對長春社來說,去年可以稱得上是環保界的“多事之秋”。


回顧過去十二個月,香港出現了一浪接一浪與環保有關的事件,考驗長春社為達成使命而迎戰的能耐:從湾仔海旁填海問題,到啓德機場舊址規劃檢討;從喜靈洲超級監獄到大嶼山發展概念計劃;從香港空氣污染日趨嚴重到海港淨化計劃;從紅湾半島事件到固體廢物處理策略;從合和超级酒店建議到油街官地發展藍圖;從保存景賢里到保護中央警署;從赤柱盆景園砍樹醜聞到林村許願樹受破害;從生態敏感地點的管理協議到鄉郊保育的公私合營計劃等等…多不勝數。


在上述事例中,長春社每每扮演牽頭或積極回應的角色,倡議和推動環保和可持續發展原則。除此以外,長春社更繼續忙於推行一贯的環保教育工作及其它相關的項目。


那麼我們努力工作換來的成效有多大呢?我可以告訴大家:答案是成敗不一。


比較顯而易見的成效是香港社會人士――甚或商界――的環保意識普遍提高,但更值得大家欣喜的現象卻是本港公民團體的合作和結盟,擴大了公民參與。我們今天所凝聚的社會資本,他日可能轉化為一股影響深遠的社會力量。


然而,我們在影響政府公共政策方面,卻遇上兩大阻力。其一是特區政府的内部決策過程紊亂無章,導致政府宣示的“可持續發展願景”變得支離破碎。其二是在“華盛頓共識” 的全球化意識形態影響下,政府及商界不自覺地接受了偏袒大企業和“但求發展,不論代價”的心態。


今年七月,香港將出現新的特首。這本來是個揚棄舊有軟弱制度的寶貴機會。然而能否把握這個良機卻視乎新領導層能否堅持和堅守可持續發展的理念,這是第一度藩障。特區政府所欠缺的不是對正確路向的認識,而是打破層層既得利益枷鎖的政治勇氣。


至於第二度藩障,則來自今日社會上的意識形態,很多人擔心香港欠缺領導改革的有識之士。到底香港人會否終有一天採納一套開明的全球化理念――承認全球化會對不同社群帶來或正或負的影響,認識市場力量的局限,維護脆弱的生態系統,以及支持最重要的一環――推動社會公義?要是我們的管治模式欠缺波濤壯闊的改革,可持續發展將仍然停留在海市蜃樓的階段。


本人充任長春社主席四年以來,一再受到一眾理事、員工及公民團體盟友的熱誠和幹勁所深深感動,故亦借此向他們致以由衷的感謝。他們的堅持讓我們看到希望的曙光。在微小的程度上,也許長春社本身的歷史可以作出見証。本社成立於1968,當時它不外是主張環保的一點孤獨聲音。然而在漫長的十七年後,香港政府終於設立了正規的環保部門。時至今日,一切已經變得那麼理所當然,沒有人能想像一個没有環保署的特區政府。


只要公民社會時刻保持警醒,難保今天被視為“不可能的夢想”,會被我們的後代視為“不可迴避的事實”!


黎廣德


20056月1日


 


 


The Conservancy Association Annual report 2004-2005 Message from the Chairman

It has been an eventful year for the Conservancy Association.


Over the past twelve months we witnessed many issues that pose formidable challenges to our mission: from harbour reclamation to Wanchai and Kai Tak planning review, from Hei Leng Chau Super-prison to Lantau Concept Plan, from worsening air pollution to Harbour Area Treatment Scheme, from Hunghom Pennisula to solid waste management strategy, from Hopewell Mega Tower to Oil Street Depot site, from King Yin Lei Mansion to Central Police Station Heritage Complex, from tree-felling at Stanley Bonsai Garden to Taipo Wishing Tree saga, from management agreements for ecologically sensitive sites to public private partnership for rural conservation. The list goes on.


In all of this CA has played either a leading or proactive role to protect the environment and advocate for sustainable development. On top of this CA continues with its busy programme in environmental education and other project work.


Yet have we achieved much? Despite our best efforts the results have been mixed.


It is easy to observe a rising level of environmental awareness in the community, and to a lesser extent, in the corporate sector. More importantly, by forging alliance among civil society groups and broadening public participation, we are building up social capital that may have long lasting impact.


However, our success in fostering public policy changes are hampered by two factors: 1)  the disarray in the government’s internal policy-making process which leads to a breakdown in its pursuit for the proclaimed vision of sustainable development; 2) the pro-big-business ideology dominated by the Washington Consensus of globalisation which engenders a “development-at-all-cost” mentality in government and in the business sector.


A new Chief Executive for the SAR Government in July offers a precious opportunity to tackle the first hurdle of institutional weakness. Yet whether this opportunity will be seized upon depends very much on the new leadership’s commitment to sustainable development. There is no lack of knowledge on what is the right path to follow, but a lack of political will to break the shackle of entrenched interests.


As for the second hurdle of ideology, many are pessimistic about the lack of intellectual leadership for change. Will we Hongkongers ever adopt a new ideology of enlightened globalisation that is capable to acknowledge its differential impact on communities, recognise the limitation of market approaches, respond to the fragility of the eco-system, and, above all, promote social justice? Without this sea-change in governing philosophy, sustainable development remains an unreachable mirage.


Over the past four years of my chairmanship in CA I was touched time and again by the enthusiasm and resourcefulness of our directors, staff and civil society partners, to whom I am fully indebted. Their perseverance offers a gleam of hope. To a small extent CA’s history has born this out: by standing up as a lone voice for conservation in 1968, an environmental protection department found its way into the government hierarchy 17 years later. It all seems so natural today that nobody can now image an SAR government without the EPD.


Provided the civil society keeps up its vigilance, what seems impossible today could one day be seen as inevitable by future generations.


Albert Lai


1 June 2005