Manish Swarup—AP
March 26, 2012. A Tibetan exile,
identified as Jampa Yeshi, runs engulfed in flames after self-immolating
during a demonstration in New Delhi.
Read more: http://lightbox.time.com/2012/03/30/pictures-of-the-week-march-23-march-30/#ixzz1qecdXn7w
Carl de Souza—AFP / Getty Images
March 24, 2012. Members of Amnesty
International carry a hot air balloon with text that reads 'Housing is a
Human right' through the Kibera slum in Nairobi.
Read more: http://lightbox.time.com/2012/03/30/pictures-of-the-week-march-23-march-30/#ixzz1qed853uF
中市南屯天主堂納重劃 教友抗議
 |
| 南屯天主堂教友認為永春自辦重劃會以灌水人頭，奪走土地，自辦重劃違法，要求土地正義。 （記者詹朝陽攝） |
憂課輔教室不保 盼原地保留
〔記者許國楨／台中報導〕台中市南屯天主堂被納入永春自辦市地重劃區，原一千多坪土地恐被割走一半，原用來幫弱勢小朋友上課輔的教室也要被拆除，上百名教友質疑是台北文林苑翻版，昨選在復活節發動連署並舉牌抗議，希望原地保留教堂，否則不排除抗爭到底。
質疑文林苑翻版 重劃會反駁
期間重劃會人員欲進入會場說明，但一踏進教會就被群情激憤的教友趕出去，場面一度火爆，隨後該會發表聲明強調，南屯天主堂是依法劃定的重劃區，市地重劃必須闢建大量公共設施，具有公共性，和台北文林苑私領域的都更完全不同，會持續溝通。
千餘坪土地 重劃後恐剩一半
南屯天主堂屬於整體開發單元三，為民間自辦重劃，但教堂不願參與市地重劃，因為原本提供弱勢學生課輔的整排教室要被拆掉，一三一六坪的土地重劃後只剩六五八坪。
教友們說，重劃會對土地分配應視土地性質、土地所有權人需求公平分配，南屯天主堂已在永春路存在五十一年，是教友心靈與情感寄託，質疑同意重劃的地主中有百餘名人頭戶，市府不該核定重劃計畫。
重劃會︰分回條件相對優厚
重劃會表示，天主堂主體建築不會拆除，也和天主堂進行五次協調，因考量並尊重天主堂是公益團體，天主堂可分回五十三．八％，較其他地主只分回五十％土地，條件相對優厚。
況且市地重劃具公共性，必須闢建大量公共設施，如學校、兒童公園、廣場、綠地、停車場及道路等十項公設用地，與都更迥然不同，也與「文林苑翻版」說法的事實不符。
市府地政局則強調，只要同意自辦市地重劃的地主人數超過一半，且同意的土地面積超過一半，就可依法組成自辦重劃會辦理重劃；市府不會採取強制手段，也會協調雙方再溝通。
----
Taiwan a dead fish at high-seas meet: Greenpeace
By Lee I-chia / Staff reporter, with CNA
The Taiwanese government failed to push for sustainable fishing at
the recently concluded Western and Central Pacific Fisheries
Commissions’ meeting, the local branch of Greenpeace East Asia said
yesterday.
As one of the world’s major fishing powers, Taiwan did not exercise as much influence as it should have to block new measures that could destroy fish populations, the group said.
According to Greenpeace, instead of stepping up efforts to protect marine life, the meeting, which was held in Guam from Monday to Friday last week, unraveled existing measures to preserve the region’s fisheries resources by reopening certain high-seas fishing grounds to destructive fishing methods.
Although Taiwan voted against the initiative, which was mainly pushed through by South Korea and the US, its reluctance to come up with a rescue plan showed its weakness on the issue, Greenpeace said.
Disappointed by the meeting’s decisions, Greenpeace East Asia senior ocean campaigner Kao Yu-fen (高于棻),who attended the meeting this year as an observer, said: “Due to the short-term economic considerations of a few members, the decision was a major setback in ocean conservation, sounding a death knell for fish resources in the area.”
“As the member owning the most fishing vessels in the area, Taiwan’s Fisheries Agency should take a leading role to actively guide the commission toward applying sustainable methods, instead of passively waiting for the decisions,” she said.
Greenpeace said Taiwan has more than 1,600 fishing vessels in the Western and Central Pacific, while a large proportion of Taiwan’s long-distance fish production comes from tuna.
Taiwan Greenpeace oceans campaigner Yen Ning (顏寧) said seine fishing had been banned in two high-seas pockets that were closed in 2008, while the use of fish aggregating devices was limited to less than three months per year, to allow tuna populations in the area to recover to the same level as 2004.
Reopening these areas will likely cause further fish depletion, she said.
The Fisheries Agency, which represented Taiwan at the meeting, disagreed, describing the meeting’s results as constructive.
“We don’t see it as a partial reopening of the Pacific Commons. It’s more about different methods of fishing management,” said Lin Ding-rong (S), deputy director of the agency’s Deep Sea Fisheries Division.
As one of the world’s major fishing powers, Taiwan did not exercise as much influence as it should have to block new measures that could destroy fish populations, the group said.
According to Greenpeace, instead of stepping up efforts to protect marine life, the meeting, which was held in Guam from Monday to Friday last week, unraveled existing measures to preserve the region’s fisheries resources by reopening certain high-seas fishing grounds to destructive fishing methods.
Although Taiwan voted against the initiative, which was mainly pushed through by South Korea and the US, its reluctance to come up with a rescue plan showed its weakness on the issue, Greenpeace said.
Disappointed by the meeting’s decisions, Greenpeace East Asia senior ocean campaigner Kao Yu-fen (高于棻),who attended the meeting this year as an observer, said: “Due to the short-term economic considerations of a few members, the decision was a major setback in ocean conservation, sounding a death knell for fish resources in the area.”
“As the member owning the most fishing vessels in the area, Taiwan’s Fisheries Agency should take a leading role to actively guide the commission toward applying sustainable methods, instead of passively waiting for the decisions,” she said.
Greenpeace said Taiwan has more than 1,600 fishing vessels in the Western and Central Pacific, while a large proportion of Taiwan’s long-distance fish production comes from tuna.
Taiwan Greenpeace oceans campaigner Yen Ning (顏寧) said seine fishing had been banned in two high-seas pockets that were closed in 2008, while the use of fish aggregating devices was limited to less than three months per year, to allow tuna populations in the area to recover to the same level as 2004.
Reopening these areas will likely cause further fish depletion, she said.
The Fisheries Agency, which represented Taiwan at the meeting, disagreed, describing the meeting’s results as constructive.
“We don’t see it as a partial reopening of the Pacific Commons. It’s more about different methods of fishing management,” said Lin Ding-rong (S), deputy director of the agency’s Deep Sea Fisheries Division.
沒有留言:
張貼留言