2007年4月22日 |
||
|
公民社會【皇后碼頭】宣言 |
||
|
【皇后碼頭】的去留即將進入關鍵時刻。政府在公民社會和立法會的廣泛質疑下，仍然不願意為保留皇后碼頭的文化歷史價值作出確切的承擔，並試圖搬出工程技術造價等理由以掩蓋政府一直以來在文化保育政策上的失誤。經過專業團體與政府代表的仔細磋商，証實了保育皇后碼頭並不存在任何不能克服的技術障礙。 皇后碼頭是天星碼頭、愛丁堡廣場及大會堂的一個整體歷史區塊的重要組成部分。儘管皇后碼頭的用途因過往中區填海的不幸決定而不得不有所變更，但政府按照最佳國際準則保育皇后碼頭的責任則絲毫未減。 特區政府自1999年起正式確立以可持續發展的理念為施政策略，自然對妥善保育文物責無旁貸。政府在過去幾年已多次錯失為保育天星碼頭和皇后碼頭制訂最佳方案的機會，現在更加不能一錯再錯，並把過往錯誤的代價加諸市民身上。
正因政府多年來一直逃避責任，未有制訂一套完整的文物保育政策，所以在保育天星及皇后碼頭時，應該採用中央政府在2000年批准的《中國文物古蹟保護準則》﹝統稱為「中國準則」﹞。這套準則乃通過國際合作努力並且以《威尼斯約章》（1964年）及國際古蹟遺址理事會澳洲分會的《布拉約章》（1979年制定，1999年修訂）為藍本制訂而成。因此，「中國準則」代表當前國際最佳的保育準則，其中以下四條對於保育皇后碼頭特別適用。 第十八條：必須原址保護。只有在發生不可抗拒的自然災害或因國家重大建 設工程的需要，使遷移保護成為唯一有效的手段時，才可以原狀 遷移，易地保護。 第十九條：盡可能減少干預。凡是近期沒有重大危險的部分，除日常保養以外不應進行更多的干預。必須干預時，附加的手段只用在最必要部分，並減少到最低限度。 第二十一條：保護現存實物原狀與歷史信息。修復應當以現存的有價值的實物為主要依據，並必須保存重要事件和重要人物遺留的痕迹。 第二十四條：必須保護文物環境。與文物古蹟價值關聯的自然和人文景觀構成文物古蹟的環境，應當與文物古蹟統一進行保護。 按照上述條款，政府提議將皇后碼頭斬件保存、易地重置的方法是完全違反了「中國準則」的要求。我們對此方案不能接受。 事實上，政府代表在立法會和4月4日公聽會上的解釋已清楚顯示，並沒有任何「國家重大建設工程的需要，使遷移保護成為唯一有效的手段」。綜合各種因素，政府不應以一些不確定的數據、不確定的延誤、不確定的成本、甚至可能永不發生的項目為理由而違背清晰的文物保護準則。 我們呼籲特區政府按照「中國準則」所要求的『原址保護、減少干預、保存現狀、保護文物環境』等各項條款作為凌駕性準則，制訂最有效保育皇后碼頭的方案，並盡速實施，以顯示政府保育文物的決心，不會再重蹈胡亂拆毀重要歷史建築的覆轍。 聯署團體： 二零零七年四月二十二日 Civil Society Declaration on Queen’s Pier 22nd April 2007 The preservation of Queen’s Pier has come to a critical moment. Despite widespread concerns from civil society and the Legislative Council, HKSAR Government is still reluctant to commit to preserving the Queen’s Pier for the sake of cultural heritage. Its recent focus on the technical issues of cost and construction details has been an attempt to divert public attention from the long-standing failure of its heritage conservation policy. Careful examinations between professional bodies and government representatives have confirmed that there are no insurmountable technical hurdles in the conservation of Queen's Pier. Queen’s Pier is a core part of the Star Ferry, Edinburgh Place and the City Hall complex, which together constitute a significant and integrated historical site of Hong Kong. Although the function of Queen’s Pier may have to change as a result of the unfortunate previous decision of Central reclamation, the Government’s responsibility to preserve Queen’s Pier in accordance with international best practice has not diminished. The HKSAR Government has embraced the concept of sustainable development as its development strategy since 1999. It must therefore shoulder its undeniable responsibility for heritage conservation. However, the Government has repeatedly missed the opportunities to formulate the most desirable conservation plans for the Star Ferry and the Queen’s Pier over the past few years. These past mistakes should not be used as excuses for making further mistakes, or for transferring the costs of policy failure to the general public.
Over the years the Government has been avoiding its responsibilities in formulating a comprehensive set of heritage conservation policies. Now it is only right that when devising the conservation plan for Queen’s Pier, it should adhere to the “Principles for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in China” (the “China Principles”) adopted by the Central Government in 2000. These principles are the result of international collaboration based on the Venice Charter (1964) and Burra Charter (1979, revised 1999) of Australia section, International Council on Monuments & Sites (“ICOMOS”). The “China Principles” thus represent the prevailing international best practice, from which the four articles below are of particular relevance to the conservation of Queen’s Pier. Article 18 Conservation must be undertaken in situ. Only in the face of uncontrollable natural threats or when a major development project of national importance is undertaken and relocation is the sole means of saving elements of a site may then be moved in their historic condition. Article 19 Intervention should be minimal. Apart from routine maintenance, there should be no intervention on parts of a building or a site that are not at imminent risk of serious damage. Intervention should only be undertaken when absolutely necessary and then should be kept to a minimum. Article 21 Physical remains should be conserved in their historic condition without loss of evidence. Respect for the significance of the physical remains must guide any restoration; vestiges and traces of significant events and persons must be preserved. Article 24 The setting of heritage site must be conserved. Natural and cultural landscapes that form part of a site’s setting contribute to its significance and should be integrated with its conservation. In light of the above provisions, the Government is clearly in violation of the “China Principles” for its proposal to chop Pier into pieces before relocation. Such a proposal is simply not acceptable to us. In fact, the explanations provided by government representatives in LegCo meetings and the April 4 Public Hearing clearly showed that there has not been evidence to justify that “a major development project of national importance is undertaken and relocation is the sole means of saving elements of a site ....” All factors considered, the Government has no ground to deviate from the unambiguous conservation requirements of the “China Principles” on the assumptions of uncertain data, uncertain delay, uncertain costs, or, worse, future projects that may never occur. We hereby petition the HKSAR Government to adhere to the “China Principles” and develop an effective conservation plan on the basis of the overriding principles of “in-situ conservation, minimal intervention, preserving the current condition, and conserving heritage setting”. In order to demonstrate Government’s determination in heritage conservation, we urge the government to implement the conservation plan as soon as possible so as not to repeat past mistakes in the destruction of important historical assets. Co-signatories: |
||