ISA HK/China --- Review of the Taipei Tree Regulations

国内朋友请使用翻译软件阅读本文。
*** Our weekly Station Mail is for the information of Station Members only, but Station Mail has given up copyright & can be freely circulated. For administrative reasons, comments from outsiders are usually not entertained & may be circulated within our system locally & overseas. Please note Station Mail is sometimes given in Blog at http://isahkchina.blogspot.com , although images are usually not attached due to size. ***

Dear Station Members,

The message below sent in by a Station Member prompted ISA HK/China to probe into the so-called ' Taipei Tree Regulations" (TTR) which has been popular among those who are not happy with the current tree protection practice in HK. In our research for Tree Protection Regulations in Taiwan, this appears to be the only one publicly issued. We also wish to respond to the underlined comments of the author with information that we are aware of, to compare with our local issues. Please check out the contents of the TTR as per attached.

The Station Manager is the lecturer conducting HK Tree Regulations in the 'Supervision of Tree Works' at the Construction Industry Council Training Association (CICTA) since Nov 2006 to present, & has been reviewing various Tree Protection Specifications near our territory including the 'Parks & Trees Acts of Singapore (2005)' (http://isahkchina.blogspot.com/2009/03/isa-hkchina-study-on-parks-and-trees.html) for some time already.

The equivalent in HK for comparison with the TTR would be the ETWB Technical Circular no. 3/2006 'Tree Preservation' of 25.5.2006, which is very much in force for Tree Preservation & Protection in HK today. Major differences between these two Tree Protection Regulations appear to be as follows:


ETWB Technical Circular no. 3/2006
Taipei Tree Regulation (TTR) of 18.4.2003

Protect any tree of DBH over 0.095 m.
Protect trees of DBH over 0.8 m.

No requirement on age of tree for protection.
Protect tree of over 50 years of age.

Priority in tree protection would be first by retention; then transplantation; & lastly application for removal.
No clear indication on the priority of tree retention, transplantation & removal.

Police Force is not involved in enforcing site inspection for tree protection.
Police Force is empowered to get involved with site inspection for tree protection, when necessary.

No clear indication on Govt Depts providing direct technical support when requested by the applicants.
Govt Depts are authorized to provide technical support to applicants when it has become necessary.

No clear indication on any commemoration to be given to outstanding tree preservation work.
Written down to provide commemoration with awards to any outstanding tree preservation work.

No fixed penalty charges for tree preservation violation.
Clear penalty charges for tree preservation violation.

Can not protect private trees growing on private land.
No indication on private trees growing on private land are to be exempted.

Contains 45 paragraphs in 14 pages, & 3 appendices in 6 pages (English).
Contains 15 paragraphs in 4 pages (Chinese)


By comparing the ETWB 3/2006 & the TTR, it can be seen that in terms of details & general scope, the ETWB 3/2006 is superior in its structure & considerations for tree protection. While the author below moaned about HK has no laws to protect the local trees, maybe she is not aware of the existence of ETWB 3/2006 & a string of other 'Tree Regulations' already in force in HK for some time. To say that HK does not respect Mother Nature would truly require factual justification with evidence in reality.

On the other hand, ETWB 3/2006 is not flawless & ISA HK/China will recommend amendments in it, along with other Tree Regulations in HK, later when the Tree Management Office is in full swing. Technical Circulars are easier to amend than legal bills in general.

It may also be unfair to unilaterally praise the Taiwanese on their one single incident in tree protection work by the author below, without any reference to the continuous work of the HK Design Teams (Town Planners, Engineers, Architects & Landscape Designers) in their on-going efforts to protect & preserve the local trees in urban setting in HK. ISA HK/China is aware of roads bent & slopes cut less to preserve trees, frequently among the HK Design Teams to compare with the work of the mentioned Taiwanese Professor. Although we can not speak on behalf of any Govt Dept, it would be unfair that such merits would simply slip through unnoticed by anybody.

As the largest Arboricultural Organization in the Far East with 1,200+ Station Membership, ISA HK/China is responsible to provide fair & just comments to our Station Members & supporters.We would also advise others to do the same by learning & comparing, before informing the public to follow their own ideas.

best regards,

Sammy Au
Station Manager

"If a tree is not designed, installed, maintained & inspected properly, it is likely to become a liability rather than an asset."

"Trees are good for the community. Trees need care like human beings. Arborists are the Tree Care Professionals."


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

08/02/2010

道路為老樹繞彎

在龍應台教授當局長年代的台北，一條規劃中的道路要穿過一位老太太的家門前，工務部門要砍掉她院子裏的老樟樹。婆婆捨不得陪伴她成長的老樹，寫信請龍局長幫忙。這位不一樣的局長願意承擔責任，統籌和邀請各工程部門共同勘察老樹，力勸大家考慮其他方案，不要破壞婆婆的家園。
奇迹出現了，工務部門經不起游說，同意龍局長的觀點，樹不用砍了，計劃中的新道路竟要為老樹繞彎。

龍應台創造了歷史。她看到台北的保護樹木法例非常不足，於是請專家協助撰寫樹木保護法案。三年後，台北巿政府通過了《樹木保護自治條例》。

我七年多前首次看到這則新聞，羨慕不已：台北真幸運，有龍應台當官，為樹木奔走和發聲。香港呢？仍是發展至上。我們未有保護樹木的法例，前立法會議員蔡素玉曾着手草擬保護古樹的私人草案，但她已不在位，草案無疾而終。

至年前赤柱大街塌樹慘劇發生後，安全成為砍樹的最新藉口。在恐懼出事的心態下，老樹被腰斬、削冠和削枝，七零八落，慘不忍睹。瑪利諾校方的心態，是上述心態的呈現和延續而已。

然而，今次瑪利諾校友為一棵老樹組織起來，他們護樹心切及表現的焦慮，讓我感到香港仍有希望。這城市一向對大自然缺乏尊重，但觀乎近期社會就 瑪利諾古樹 的討論，我想，起碼有一小撮人的價值觀開始改變。甚麼時候，我們城市的道路會為老樹繞彎，也許並非天方夜譚。

_____________________________________________________________________________________
北市三一－０三－一００一
臺北市樹木保護自治條例

中華民國九十二年四月十八日臺北市政府(92)府法三字第０九二０二八五八八００號令制定公布
中華民國九十八年七月二十日臺北市政府(98)府法三字第０九八三五０六八四００號令修正公布第三條、第八條及第九條條文

第 一 條 臺北市（以下簡稱本市）為保護具有保存價值之樹木及其生長環境，維護都市自然文化景觀及綠色資源，並健全都市生態，特制定本自治條例。
本自治條例未規定者，依其他相關法令之規定。

第 二 條 本自治條例所稱受保護樹木，係指本市轄區內，具有下列各款情形之一者：
一. 樹胸高直徑０．八公尺以上者。
二. 樹胸圍二．五公尺以上者。
三. 樹高十五公尺以上者。
四. 樹齡五十年以上者。
五. 珍稀或具生態、生物、地理及區域人文歷史、文化代表性之樹木，包括群體樹林、綠籬、蔓藤等，並經主管機關認定者。
前項樹胸高直徑係指離地一．三公尺所量測之樹木直徑，樹胸圍係指離地一．三公尺所量測之樹木周圍。

第 三 條 本自治條例之主管機關為臺北市政府（以下簡稱市政府），市政府所屬各機關權責劃分如下：
一 .文化局：負責本自治條例受保護樹木之普查、列管、督導、協調、執行及違反本自治條例之處理。
二. 都市發展局：負責受保護樹木地區之都市計畫相關配合事項。
三. 工務局：負責維護管理用地內受保護樹木之保護事項及第八條之技術援助等有關事項。
四. 產業發展局：負責公告之山坡地範圍內受保護樹木之保護事項、第八條之技術援助及第九條之追蹤處置等有關事項。
五. 民政局及各區公所：負責一公頃以下之鄰里公園內受保護樹木之保護事項、第八條之技術援助及第九條之追蹤處置等有關事項。
六. 警察局：負責第七條第三項之協助勘查及第九條之協助處理等有關事項。
七. 教育局：負責所轄學校用地內受保護樹木之保護事項。
八. 本市各公共工程主辦機關：負責各公共工程內受保護樹木之保護事項。
九. 市政府其他各機關負責轄區內受保護樹木之保護事項。

第 四 條 主管機關為處理關於受保護樹木之審議、諮詢、解釋、認定、協調、爭議及重大違規事件，得設臺北市樹木保護委員會（以下簡稱樹委會）。
前項樹委會設置辦法，由主管機關訂定之。

第 五 條 受保護樹木非經主管機關許可，不得砍伐、移植或以其他方式破壞，並應維護其良好生態環境。

第 六 條 從事建築、開闢道路、公園、綠地或其他公共工程等之建設開發者，應檢附施工地區內樹籍資料及受保護樹木之保護計畫或移植與復育計畫等相關資料，提送主管機關審查同意後始得施工。其屬申請建築執照者，應由建設開發者備齊樹籍資料及保護計畫或移稙計畫與復育計畫等相關資料，提送主管機 關審查同意後，始得由工務局核發執照。
前項基地屬公有土地者，其受保護樹木以原地保留為原則。其無法原地保留時，應由建設開發者自行負擔經費，並擬具移植計畫與復育計畫書圖向主管機關申請移植，經審議通過後始得為之。
第一項基地屬私有土地者，建設開發者為利用土地之需要，得擬具移植計畫與復育計畫書圖，並自行負擔經費，向主管機關申請移植。

第 七 條 第三條所定之各權責機關為執行本自治條例，必要時，得派員攜帶證明文件進入公、私場所進行勘查。
前項公、私場所之所有人或占有人，不得規避、妨礙或拒絕勘查。
第一項勘查，必要時，得洽請轄區警察機關協助。

第 八 條 受保護樹木之所有人或占有人，得向樹木所在地區公所提出申請，轉請工務局提供養護技術援助。
前項受保護樹木位於公告之山坡地範圍內者，區公所應轉請產業發展局提供養護技術援助。

第 九 條 為確保山坡地及社區內之樹木資源，產業發展局及區公所應定期
追縱當地受保護樹木實際狀況，除於每年十二月向主管機關提報其資料外，並視實際需要即時提報之。
第三條所定各權責機關，發現有違反本自治條例規定之情事時， 應予以制止或為其他必要之處置，並立即通知主管機關，必要時，得洽請轄區警察機關協助處理。

第 十 條 保護樹木成效卓著者，應予以表揚及獎勵。
前項表揚及獎勵辦法，由主管機關訂定之。

第 十一 條 違反第五條之規定者，處新臺幣五萬元以上十萬元以下之罰鍰，經限期改善未完成者，得連續處罰至完成改善為止。

第 十二 條 違反第六條規定者，處新臺幣五萬元以下之罰鍰，經限期改善未完成者，得連續處罰至完成改善為止。

第 十三 條 違反第七條第二項規定者，除得強制執行外，並得處新臺幣一萬元以上三萬元以下之罰鍰，且得按日連續處罰至履行義務為止。

第 十四 條 依本自治條例課處之罰鍰，逾期不繳納者，依法移送強制執行。

第 十五 條 本自治條例自公布日施行。