《心靈研磨坊─身心體能極限的突破，放慢步調，邁開腳步，輕鬆地悠遊著….》
10 十月 2017 發表留言
in 【匯納百川】
【主辦單位】中華民國四健會協會
【協辦單位】池上鄉公所、臺東農田水利會、池上農會、國軍退除役官兵輔導委員會台東農場、花蓮區農業改良場
【活動日期】2017年10月21~22日(星期六~日) 8:00~17:00
【集合時間】池上火車站
【活動對象】滿14歲以上，共30人為限
【活動費用】活動費用1400元/人(含食宿)
【報名方式】網路http://goo.gl/8T31jz
10 十月 2017 發表留言
in 【太陽草原】
《 Joan Baez – Green Green Grass Of Home (03:14) 》
10 十月 2017 發表留言
in 【匯納百川】
10 十月 2017 發表留言
in 【太陽草原】
《 Joan Baez – Blowing In The Wind (03:05) 》
10 十月 2017 發表留言
in 【匯納百川】
埔里鎮人口最少、地理位置最邊緣、人口老化程度最高的里，有個和處境完全相反的名字──成功。
成功里是我眼中的一塊祖母綠。低度人為開發，至今仍保持完整的淺山生態環境。有溪、有山、客家村落、個性純樸，同時也是眾多野生動物的棲息地。
當地沒有自來水，居民們都要自己解決飲水問題，挖井或者是抽溪水。8月下旬，有一戶居民林紫鈴感覺飲用水的味道怪怪的，循著水路去找，發現剛挖好的井裡頭有一具動物屍體。把它撈起來後，由於動物屍體已經泡在水裡腫脹，毛都沒了，開始腐爛；居民拍完照後，它就被棄置在一旁的溪床。
過了幾天之後，居民覺得不太安心，跟社區發展協會的徐福宏理事長提起這件事。
當天（2017/09/01），理事長也覺得不太對勁，與我聯繫。傳了屍體照片給我看，並且詢問有沒有可能是石虎？照片裡的動物己經掉毛，憑外觀只看出是貓科動物，無法確認。我跟特生中心的林育秀聯繫，並把照片傳給她看。由於事發的地點離我們知道石虎的分佈位置相當接近，讓我感到憂心。
討論的結果，育秀希望能取得一部份的組織做化驗，然後將屍骨先從河邊移到沒人會經過的路旁。由於接近開學，校內工作和會議頗多，抽不出時間。我向理事長和居民聯絡，提出先將屍骨保存下來的請求。
過了幾天的下午（2017/09/07），我到成功里去拿這副屍骨。屍骨放在水桶裡頭，剪下來的一片耳朵用膠帶包著。回到宿舍，晚上七點。很怕遇到人，因為桶子裡裝的東西看起來不太正常、桶子散發出濃烈的味道也不太正常。進到房間之後，深吸了一口氣，到浴室開始跟這副屍骨奮戰。
這不是我第一次清理動物的屍骨。蛆、爛掉的皮肉跟毛、混濁的水。總之，就是臭。
弄到一個程度之後，晚上十點半跟育秀聯絡處理的進度。拍攝頭骨特定的部位，育秀看了之後，她初步判定是石虎的頭骨。再與日本學者聯繫後，確認是石虎。
知道這個消息（2017/09/08），心情沈重。先前的擔憂都成真了。
跟理事長和發現的紫鈴大哥聯絡，他們覺得很遺憾。他們和我一樣，珍惜成功里的故鄉生態、期盼野生動物能有好的棲息環境。
這是第一筆受困在人工結構物而致死的石虎案例。
這隻石虎跌進深五公尺用涵管做成的井裡。沒有明顯的外傷。屍體相當完整。為什麼會掉進去，則是未解的謎。
浸泡在水中的石虎骨頭還是得處理。紹華特地從高雄回來幫忙協助處理石虎的骨頭（2017/09/19）。刷刷洗洗的過程，我們開始去認識每塊骨頭，對應在石虎身驅的位置。在這過程中，有幾個比較正向的想法：
一、幾個學期以來，社區保育課程進入成功里和居民共學，這個過程是有意義的。
大學與地方共學是一種拉進更多單位關注淺山保育議題的方法。這幾個學期持續著特生中心、雪霸國家公園、暨大、成功社區發展協會之間的合作，相互陪伴，過程交心。
如果暨大師生沒有走進成功里，理解當地的生態環境，和里民們一同關心野生動物保育議題；那麼，這隻落井石虎會被當成野貓被丟在路旁。我們就無法從這個經驗之中學習到人工結構物對野生動物造成的影響，而使得我們日後更加謹慎。它的犧牲固然悲傷，但意識到它是一隻石虎，進行單位網絡之間的聯繫，顯現出保育意識在社區裡的強化。
二、動物標本的製成，是一種技術。
標本製成的技術跟埔里之間的關係並不遙遠。1940到1970年代的埔里鎮，剝製業相當發達。現今仍幾個達人級的標本製作匠師還在埔里。保育觀念的起興，讓他們的製成技術成為說不出口、不值得提起的回憶。
在鄉下，路殺的案例不少，除了通報和寄送屍體到特生中心之外；暨大的大學生好像可以透過課程的重新設計，跟在地資源連結，再學到和其它大學不一樣的東西。
我們如何更以開放的心態，在社區、鄉鎮層級的環境教育議題上，讓這些死亡的野生物種更能發揮意義，未來也要再思考和提出方案。
三、辦公室的同事們對我做這件事相當包容。
其實，整個暑假，我總共處理了三件動物屍駭，不同的物種，都很臭。我用的方法很傳統，浸泡、腐爛、脫脂，然後再曝曬。意思就是臭上好一陣子。謝謝接納我的任性，包容我。開學了，這種行為會收斂。
接下來，這副石虎骨頭會交給特生中心進行保存。在成功里的監測也會持續進行。至於造成石虎死亡的水井，也封了蓋，避免有其它的野生動物掉落。
喜歡這篇文章嗎？
快來媒體小農灌溉環境資訊中心吧！
※ 轉載自作者臉書，原發表時間為2017/10/5，圖文未經作者同意請勿轉載。
10 十月 2017 發表留言
in 【太陽草原】
《 Joan Baez – House Of The Rising Sun (03:01) 》
10 十月 2017 發表留言
in 【匯納百川】
到新加坡旅遊的遊客，或許曾在夜間動物園看過馬來靈貓（Malay civet，Viverra tangalunga），這種名列IUCN瀕危物種紅皮書的野生動物，普遍認為在新加坡野外已經滅絕，然而2012年研究人員的自動相機卻拍攝到牠的身影。另一個讓保育單位興奮的消息是，2011年新加坡海域重新發現了杯狀大海綿（Neptune’s Cup sponge，Cliona patera），這種海綿動物前一次出現是在百年前的1908年。
上述新加坡生物多樣性保育的成果，都在其國家公園局2015年提交給生物多樣性締約國大會（CBD）秘書處的「國家生物多樣性保育報告」中，報告也提到，2010～2014年新發現和重新發現的維管束植物有54種、鳥類21種，然而同時也有一種鳥類、二種大型貝類和昆蟲可能已經在當地消失。
猶記2002年第六屆生物多樣性締約國大會（COP6）上各國領袖所做的承諾：「2010年以前將大幅減緩生物多樣性滅絕的速度。」但是到了2010年，這項目標卻正式宣告失敗。
令人失望的成果，促使各國重新訂定新的生物多樣性保育策略十年計畫，並設定更明確的「愛知目標」（Aichi Targets），希望各國政府與非政府組織能投入更多資源在生物多樣性的保育及永續利用。包括新加坡在內的締約國承諾更新其「國家生物多樣性策略和行動計畫」，且每4到5年定期向大會秘書處提交報告，說明將如何達成2011～2020的生物多樣性保育目標。
愛知目標詳列了到2020年的20項子目標，如：應將生物多樣性的價值納入國家和地方發展與減貧策略，並規劃進程，納入國家財務會計報告系統（目標2）；應減少包括森林在內的所有自然棲地喪失和退化，並使破碎化程度減半或盡可能接近於零（目標4）；應保護至少17%的陸地和內陸水域，以及10%的沿海和海洋區域，尤其對生物多樣性和生態系服務具有特殊重要性的區域，進行有效公平的管理和保育措施，納入更廣泛的土地景觀和海洋景觀系統（目標11）；在2015年之前，各國應擬定、通過政策工具，並執行一項有效、參與式的國家生物多樣性策略行動計畫（目標17）。
除了國家之外，秘書處也鼓勵地方政府建立各自的「地方生物多樣性策略和行動計畫」，為國家貢獻行動成果。然而城市和地方政府的生物多樣性保育跟國家有所不同，需要不一樣的行動計畫和評估方式。
新加坡政府提出「新加坡城市生物多樣性指數」（SI），就是為城市或地方政府而設計，國家公園局表示，新加坡指數提供了一項監測和評估工具，且其各項指標都可回應愛知目標的各個項目。
「新加坡指數」如何評估一個城市的生物多樣性保育成效呢？在國家公園局出版的操作手冊中有詳細說明。
首先，必須先了解城市的基礎背景資訊，尤其是生物多樣性現況。在第一部分，須詳細說明城市的地理位置、面積、人口特徵、經濟參數、城市的自然特徵等，以及該城市所擁有的「生物多樣性特點和特徵」，包括生態系統、可發現的物種、本地重要物種的定量數據。第一部分也須說明與生物多樣性有關的行政管理措施，以及相關連結網站等。
完成了城市的基礎資訊，在第二部分，可透過23項指標，來衡量該城市本身的生物多樣性、生態系統服務，以及對生物多樣性的管理。針對每一項指標，國家公園局都說明了選擇該項指標的理由，以及計算方式，依據計算結果給予評分標準。每項指標最高可得4分，總分最高為92分。舉例來說：
指標1：該城市的自然區域所占比例
國家公園局說明，由於城市擁有較高比例改造過的土地，因此城市的自然區域定義是「由本土物種和自然生態系統所組成，且沒有、不再或只輕微受到人類行為影響，但為了保護、提高或重建本土生物多樣性所做的行為不算在內。」
國家公園局進一步解釋，為鼓勵城市積極復育受到影響的生態系統，因此把已恢復的生態系統和自然化區域也納入。
透過遺產老樹保護計畫，瀕危的娑羅樹（Meranti Laut）在新加坡植物園雨林內受到保護。圖片來源：新加坡植物園。
城市自然區域所占比例」的計算方式：（自然區域＋已恢復及自然化的區域總面積）÷（城市總面積）×100%
如果該城市的自然區域占20%以上，就可得到最高的4分，14%到20%可得3分，以此類推。這個指標評估了城市在保護和復育生態系統和自然棲地之作為和成效，對應到愛知目標，與第5、11、12、13、15項子目標相關。其餘的22項指標亦同。
除了以上舉例，第二部分的指標還包括：［指標10］計算外來入侵種比例、［指標11］計算城市的水量管理、［指標12］計算城市中植被的儲碳和降溫效果；在政策管理方面，［指標15］地方政府執行生物多樣性政策的預算、［指標16］每年執行的計畫數量，與［指標18、19］生物多樣性相關的機構數量等。此外，教育和民眾意識提升也是重要的指標項目。
目前新加坡指數已廣泛使用，國家公園局表示，到 2012 年底，全球有 70 多個城市開始應用該指數，也有五個國家的334個城市使用刪減版指標，作為歐洲首都生物多樣性計畫的一部分。
「新加坡指數的目的，是為了幫助城市更加了解，長期而言該如何改善生物多樣性保育措施。」國家公園局說，指數是一個自我評估工具，並非用來和不同城市做比較，而是以城市既有的現況為基礎，檢視自我表現，並根據這些指標定期監測，決定政策的優先順序。
2014年最新的《全球生物多樣性展望4》指出，城市和地方政府對於生物多樣性公約的實施有重要影響。全球都市化嚴重，當大量人口移往城市，對城市的基礎設施產生更大需求，都市化的模式將決定未來城市和全球的永續發展。
「如果目前的行為、消費、生產和經濟模式『一切照舊』且持續下去，全球生態系統將無法滿足未來人類的需求」報告中提出警告。
不過報告也指出，這些挑戰或有轉機。城市的優勢是擁有較多資金、知識機構，資訊和人的網絡，因此能夠迅速轉變且做出因應。透過地方政府的環境影響評估，和研究得到的精準數據，可以針對生物多樣性嚴重喪失的地區，加以量化，並且制定減輕全球環境影響的措施。透過政策，生物多樣性主流化或可在城市的優勢中實現。
以新加坡來說，2009年所設定綠化面積和生物多樣性目標，在2015年時已大幅超前。「整體而言，新加坡在達成愛知目標上有具體顯著的進度。」國家公園局指出，在18個可計算的指標中，新加坡獲得總分77分中的55分。此外，新加坡國土計畫和2015國家永續藍圖的規劃過程，就是把生物多樣性納入政策和決策考量，讓生物多樣性主流化的具體表現。
喜歡這篇文章嗎？
快來媒體小農灌溉環境資訊中心吧！
10 十月 2017 發表留言
in 【太陽草原】
《 Joan Baez – No Woman No Cry (03:54) 》
10 十月 2017 發表留言
in 【匯納百川】
萱萱一覺醒來發現自己身上覆蓋著毛髮，還長了尾巴，原來是變成了一隻石虎！他在森林中跟其他動物變成好朋友，並從他們口中得知，原來爸爸開的汽車是野生動物最害怕的大魔王！萱萱該怎麼告訴爸爸，小心開車，不要傷害他的朋友？萱萱的爸爸該如何避免傷及變成石虎的萱萱？
由鐵支路邊創作體演出的舞台劇「萱萱的奇幻歷險」15日下午2點在台中市豐樂公園「2017年挺挺動物生活節」舞台首演，透過50分鐘戲劇表演，演繹野生動物常面臨的生存威脅；過程輕鬆、有趣且易懂，有緊張有洋蔥，讓親子同歡之際，學習正確的用路態度。
主辦單位挺挺網絡社會企業、台灣動物社會研究會、交通公路總局及農委會特有生物研究保育中心等單位，昨（6日）召開記者會，邀請民眾一起來看戲保育野生動物！
野生動物因車禍而死亡（路殺）的現象，這幾年透過特生中心「路殺社」（「臺灣動物路死觀察網」）網友直擊記錄，受害者面貌逐漸浮現。
根據交通部統計，至2016年底止台灣的道路總長度43,365公里，平均每平方公里就有1,204公尺是道路，全球排名13、亞洲地區僅次於日本（3,157公尺）和澳洲（1,275公尺）。但若以每平方公里汽車數量評比，卻是世界第1，每平方公里有217.7輛汽車。若再計算機車數量，總數達596.4輛，遠高於第2名荷蘭的196.5輛（資料來源為NationMaster網站 )。
高且頻繁的交通流量，不但造成交通事故頻傳，對動物生存的威脅更是日益嚴重。根據特生中心公民科學計畫「臺灣動物路死觀察網」過去6年累計的資料顯示，路殺現象密布台灣道路，總共548種、56,918隻動物，成為輪下冤魂。
其中至少包括16隻瀕臨絕種保育類的水獺、53隻石虎、35隻穿山甲、21隻麝香貓和241隻白鼻心因路殺而死。特生中心助理研究員林德恩說，這對本來族群數量就已剩不多、族群存續汲汲可危的保育類動物而言，無疑雪上加霜。
其實用路人也不願意行車時誤撞野生動物。特生中心主任楊嘉棟表示，當事件發生時，易使駕駛人產生慌張的心理，造成打滑等現象，影響行車安全。因此這項三年計畫，不僅是為了野生物保育，更為駕駛人行車安全著想。
交通部副總工程司李忠璋表示，道路開發會切割棲地，影響野生動物穿越道路覓食、求偶，因此在道路設計上，必須兼顧開路必要性以及野生動物保育。
為此，交通部公路總局自今年9月起，連續3年與特生中心合作「中部地區友善道路改善計畫」，先以苗栗、台中及南投等地區的省道，為主要改善路段；透過道路兩側食肉目動物追蹤調查的基礎研究，找出動物重要穿越途徑，並廣邀全民參與「公民科學路殺動物調查」，建立全台路殺基礎資料，據以改善道路設計。
此外，這項計畫也企圖藉由社區或團體培力，共同協助維護和監控改善成效，降低路殺、守護區域生態。
由於動物路殺的發生，有極高比例起因於用路人疏忽。為了讓更多國人能正視此議題，並從檢視自身駕駛行為作起，首次透過舞台劇巡迴推廣表演，讓國人在欣賞藝文表演的同時，也能深思和正視，野生動物因我們對環境的破壞所受到的各種生存威脅，提醒國人正視動物車禍（路殺）、環境保護和交通安全等議題。
「鐵支路邊創作體」與「醞釀藝文工作室」對國內許多動物常因人們有意或無意的行為而不幸死亡深感同情，此次以國內常見且易受路殺威脅的石虎及穿山甲等5種中型哺乳類為故事主角，期待透過戲劇張力，讓三縣市居民珍惜台灣珍稀野生動物，並學習與自然環境相處之道。
喜歡這篇文章嗎？
快來媒體小農灌溉環境資訊中心吧！
※ 人與野生動物主題報導與 行政院農業委員會 林務局 
合作刊登
10 十月 2017 發表留言
in 【匯納百川】
http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=170358
August 21, 2017, 8:26 pm
by Dr Rohan H Wickramasinghe
Some days ago, I received an article on elephant conservation by Jeremy Hance in The Guardian of August 12th. Much of the piece concerned the ‘Elephant Sanctuary’ in Tennessee, USA, which was established over 20 years ago on 200 acres and now covers 2700 acres. It presently hosts 10 elephants and sightseers, parties and casual visitors are unwelcome and not admitted.
The staff is very experienced in the various aspects of the management of the sanctuary. They are, also, devoted to their charges. One such is Otto Fad, Animal Behaviour and Research Specialist (see below), who notes that ‘elephants have deep psychological needs’.
The article on ‘Elephant Conservation’ was published in support of 2017’s ‘World Elephant Day’ (WED2017). This was co-founded on the 12th August 2012 by the Canadian film director, Patricia Sims and the ‘Elephant Re-introduction Foundation of Thailand’, which was founded in 1996 on the initiative of Queen Sirikit. (The latter Foundation was set up to attempt to re-introduce some of the approximately 2800 ‘domesticated’ elephants in Thailand to the wild.) Patricia Sims was the director of the documentary ‘When Elephants were Young’, which was narrated by ‘Star Trek’ actor, William Shatner. ‘World Elephant Day’ is managed by the ‘World Elephant Society’.
The populations of elephants in the wild have been diminishing significantly in recent years. This is primarily due to poaching for ivory and, also, to human/elephant conflict in areas of increasing human activity. Some estimate that the numbers of African elephants (i.e. Bush Elephants and Forest Elephants) in the wild today approximate 400,000 and those of Asian elephants are 40,000. Others view these figures as grossly exaggerated. Be that as it may, it is indisputable that the numbers are declining.
The concept of doing something for elephants has been spreading rapidly in recent years. Animal rights groups, such as PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals), have been working on different fronts to improve the ways in which people treat these and other animals. This includes the way animals are treated in some zoos and, especially, circuses.
The three decades-long battle the animals’ rights groups had with the Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus is a case in point. The Bailey Circus was launched in about 1806 by Hachaliah Bailey and was probably the first in the US. It included an African elephant, a trained dog, a horse, some pigs and a wagon. After ups-and-downs and a merger, a revitalized circus began as ‘P. T. Barnum’s Great Travelling Museum, Menagerie, Caravan and Hippodrome’ in 1871. The circus developed over the years and came to be billed as ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’. Animal rights groups, including PETA, however, took up in court battles the cause of what they claimed was ill treatment of animals, which included elephants, lions, tigers and kangaroos. Eventually the circus withdrew on 1 May 2016 the 11 Asian elephants they had performing with the circus and sent them to join the approximately 31 others they had in their 200-acre Center for Elephant Conservation in Florida. This was the largest herd of Asian elephants in North America. This move was followed on Sunday 21 May 2017 with the complete closing down of the circus after a history of 146 years due to lack of income to meet expenses. The success of the animal rights organizations in this matter is attributable to the public pressure which had been created.
The foregoing brief account of the history and fate of the Ringling Circus demonstrates the growing concern for the way animals are treated. This includes the way livestock is treated and is not confined to the Western and developed worlds. The urge to do something for elephants is growing in recent years and ‘World Elephant Day’ is now observed in numerous countries, including, for example, Australia, Canada, India, Nepal, South Africa, Tanzania, Thailand, UK and USA. As regards organizations involved in activities and events in relation to ‘World Elephant Day’, the 24 listed in Wikipedia are only a few of the many. Activities related to marking ‘World Elephant Day’ included, for instance, a march in Washington, D.C. and the Wildlife Conservation Society arranging for the ringing of the closing bell at the Nasdaq Market Site in Times Square, New York City. The Wildlife Conservation Society also joined with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation in crushing almost two tons of ivory (value: 8 million USD) in a symbolic start to WED2017.
As regards ‘World Elephant Day’-related matters in Sri Lanka, the only event brought to my attention was the launch of a book on ‘elephants’. However, The Island newspaper on Monday the 14th August did carry an elephant-related news item titled ‘Hakka patas injures jumbo calf seriously’. This noted that a young elephant wounded by a ‘hakka patas’ had been found in the Hambantota Port premises. It was noted that the mouth of the elephant is seriously injured. The animal also bears a gunshot wound on its head and it has also lost part of its trunk due to a previous injury. The photograph accompanying the article gives clear evidence that the report does not exaggerate the suffering of the animal.
It is appropriate here to return to the observations of Otto Fad of the Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee. He notes that ‘Welfare is a concept that can be applied to any animal in any situation…….. Does anyone think that a starving elephant who has just had her lower jaw blown off by a hakka pata (a makeshift explosive inserted in fruits and vegetables to injure or kill any animal raiding fields) takes comfort in her ‘wild’ status ?’ It is noteworthy that this observation does not explain that ‘hakka patas’ is a word used in Sri Lanka. In other words, to many if not most elephant lovers worldwide an explanation is already unnecessary that it is in Sri Lanka that this abominably cruel contraption is used.
The excuse will no doubt be advanced that the ‘hakka patas’ (incidentally, a most cynical term which is translated as ‘bang goes the lower jaw’) is used to protect the crops of the farmer. While the writer does not profess to be an authority in the area of protecting crops from elephants, he does not accept that a solution cannot be found, which is more humane than the use of a ‘hakka patas’. The Sri Lanka Wildlife Conservation Society (SLWCS), which has been established since 2002, is working actively in the area of human-elephant conflict, which it estimates has an economic cost of 10 million USD per year in Sri Lanka. Its field work by local and foreign volunteers is conducted around Wasgamuwa National Park.
Fire crackers have traditionally been employed to scare elephants away from crops and human habitations (particularly when paddy is stored after the harvest). However, this technique is less effective after frequent use. The SLWCS also makes use of solar-powered electric fences. A more recent approach introduced by the SLWCS is the use of bee hives in the path of routes taken by elephants. This has been found in African countries to have a useful deterrent effect. However, this is not universally applicable, since bee colonies may abandon their hives during unfavourable conditions. Again, excessive dependence on bee colonies to deter problems with elephants is inadvisable as honey bees are on the decline in many parts of the world due to problems with pollution and disease. (The pollution problems may include disorientation due to the use of radios, TVs and cell phones.) The SLWCS is also experimenting with planting fences of citrus (i.e. orange and lime trees) to deter elephants as well as to provide additional sources of income to villagers. A further novel approach being tried out by the PAMS Foundation (co-founded by the late Wayne Lotter) is ‘Chillie Pepper Fences’ on the outskirts of Ruanda National Park in southern Tanzania to protect crops during the growing season.
The argument that ‘hakka patas’ is used to protect crops and habitations from elephants ignores the fact that the ‘hakka patas’ is also used to procure the meat of the wild boar. This is often offered in a quiet voice by bungalow keepers managing circuit bungalows etc in relevant regions. (As regards consuming the flesh of elephants, Siran Deraniyagala in his authoritative ‘The Prehistory of Sri Lanka’ (1992) notes that there is no firm evidence that the Veddahs hunted elephants for food. This was probably linked to a taboo among the Veddahs. )
Locations in Sri Lanka where elephants may be observed are the Wildlife Parks, Pinnawala Elephant Orphanage, Dehiwela Zoological Gardens and the various Peraheras. Some elephants are privately kept. Reams have been written on elephants in these locations and it is not the purpose of this article to enter into these discussions, which are freely available for reference by those interested.
The purpose of this article is to focus attention on the outright cruelty practiced in our treatment of our wildlife and other animals on occasion. The packed conditions under which cattle are sometimes transported when some of the animals die of suffocation before arrival at their destination and the indiscriminate killing of friendly street dogs are other scandals which need to be addressed effectively. The use of ‘hakka patas’ in Sri Lanka to kill wildlife is evidently becoming widely known internationally. It is fortunate that the recent incident where a live eagle was reportedly skinned in the presence of others in order to satisfy the sadistic instincts of a few did not receive wider coverage in international circles.
We are already having to defend ourselves internationally against charges of being abusers of human rights. If we don’t take effective action against the practice of employing ‘hakka patas’, wildlife organizations around the world will enter into the picture sooner rather than later and, in the first instance, urge their nationals to avoid tourism to Sri Lanka until we set our house in order. Schools, religious bodies and law enforcement agencies could help. The Ringling Circus matter provides ample evidence that once the international animal rights organizations around the world get their teeth into an issue they do not give up. In the matter of taking effective action against the continuing use of ‘hakka patas’ I would be in sympathy with them.
10 十月 2017 發表留言
in 【匯納百川】
View(s): 580
A four-year-old elephant, which had suffered severe injuries after biting an explosives-packed device used to hunt wild animals for human consumption is fighting for its life.
The illegal device commonly known as —‘hakka pattas’ — a mixture of explosives with lead and ball bearings inserted into a piece of pumpkin had been placed in a location in Hambantota. It is at that site where the wounded animal had been found nearly two weeks after the incident.
The explosion had mutilated its jaw bones, teeth, and ripped off a foot long piece of trunk. The animal is being treated at the Elephant Transit Home Udawalawe.
Veterinary surgeon, Dr Malaka Abeywardena told the Sunday Times that even after three days of treatment, there had not been any improvement as of Friday.
“Due to the damage to the jaw and teeth of the elephant calf it has to take liquid food. It is malnourished and weak making anaesthetised surgery impossible.’’
Dr Abeywardena said that that the calf would have roamed near Hambantota harbour for over a week after being wounded. The animal’s mouth and the side of it’s head was infested with maggots.
“Antibiotics are given twice a day, while saline, energy boosting medicine and vitamins are given regularly,’’ he said.
Incidents of elephants being killed by using hakka patas, shooting them or poisoning them are on the rise.
Within the last five years, from 2012 to 2016 around 1,171 elephants have died out of which only 104 had died due to natural causes, according to the Wildlife Department.
The survey on the elephant population done in 2011 revealed that the number of elephants in the country around 5,800.
Statistics show that during last year alone 279 elephants were found dead and only 35 of them had died due to natural causes.
Dr Tharaka Prasad, director of wildlife health at the Wildlife Department as well as the chief veterinary surgeon, said more deaths take place because of gun shot wounds.
He said that a tusker and another elephant suffering from gunshot injuries are struggling for their lives in Kala Wewa, Anuradhapura and in Minneriya respectively.
“Elephants which are shot can only be identified when the animal shows signs of weakness or seen limping towards a pool of water. Its too late then as it is badly infected by that time,’’ he said.
Dr Prasad noted instances of elephants wounded by trap guns set up by farmers and surviving for years after the wounds heal, but the corrosion of the iron balls embedded in their flesh, kills them eventually.
He explained that some farmers kill elephants by using toxic pesticide in vegetables. Electric fences can also kill elephants in minutes or within days.
The explosion had mutilated the baby elephant’s jaw bones, teeth, and ripped off a foot long piece of trunk. Pix by Rahul Samantha Hettiararchchi
“At least three elephants are found dead every week. If an animal that has been poisoned, eaten hakka patas, or has suffered burn injuries from an electrical source, is found alive, there is little chance to save it,’’ he explained.
There are 15 wildlife veterinary surgeons, but their main task is to handle any epidemic situation in wildlife parks and not individual cases.
Meanwhile, wildlife rangers, guards and officials from various parks spelt out the difficulties that they face in elephant conservation. There is not enough staff for monitoring, for raids, to investigate those who set explosives, or those who leave poisoned food in the paddy fields bordering forests.
There is also not water in Galagmuwa, Giribawa, Hambantota, and Meegalawa because of the drought. Water is brought in by tanker trucks only into some areas.
“The elephants which roam in search of water take down electric fencing and enter villages.The villagers shot them,’’one of them said.
The lack of staff means they have to call up the unarmed Civil Defence Force to help. They are not trained to handle wildlife issues.
The rangers also claimed that some elephants are wounded by their own officers because they use live ammunition, not rubber bullets.
Director general of the DWC, M G C Sooriyabandara, said that over 65% of elephant deaths are caused by shooting.
Elephants who fall victim to hakka pattas could suffer for over three months and starve to death.
Mr Sooriyabandara said that use of hakka pattas within or outside of wildlife reserves is illegal, but detection is difficult.
“According to the Fauna and Flora Protection Ordinance any person who kills or harms any protected animal is liable to a jail term and or a fine of Rs 200,000 to Rs 500,000.
Mr Sooriyabandara admitted that the DWC is short staffed, but said offenders can be arrested.
He denied that live ammunition is used and explained that rubber bullets are provided to officers for emergencies.
“We never encourage officers to shoot animals. We never provide live ammunition, but if individuals are using them we will investigate.’’
Minister of Sustainable Development and Wildlife, Gamini Jayawickrama Perera, said he wants to find the companies making firecrackers that provide people with gunpowder to produce hakka pattas.
If animals continued to suffer, new laws will have to be drafted to restrict gunpowder issued to villagers, he said.
Mr Perera said that the department needs at least 1,000 officials. He had informed the cabinet that 200 people are urgently needed.
10 十月 2017 發表留言
in 【匯納百川】
http://www.livemint.com/Leisure/N5QSuUm5xp2zFEY05nPP2O/Crocodile-tears-for-the-elephant.html
At two different forums last weekend, I heard the current Union environment minister, Harsh Vardhan, and one of his predecessors, Jairam Ramesh, speaking their minds. The former minister acknowledged the “tough choices” he faced when he had to give forest clearances for development projects. Now a Rajya Sabha member, Ramesh hinted that more difficult days lay ahead—and that environment protection laws could see further dilution.
His parting shot: “It is near impossible for any minister to focus on long-term environment protection over tangible economic interests. As ministers and leaders of political parties, we all make tall promises in our speeches but fail miserably in implementing most of them.”
That, unfortunately, seems to be true.
Vardhan spoke at length at Delhi’s Teen Murti Bhawan on 12 August, on the occasion of World Elephant Day. Ironically, he was more interested in talking about the elephant god, Ganesh, than tackling one of the immediate challenges affecting elephant conservation—the human-elephant conflict that has affected lives and livelihoods, even as it has displaced pachyderms from their habitats. Vardhan, in fact, wanted wild elephants in every state and wondered why Maharashtra, which celebrates Ganesh Utsav with fervour, has so few of them. The state recorded only six wild elephants in the latest count.
It was at the same function that Raman Sukumar, an elephant expert and scientific adviser for the census, announced the results of the latest count: India has 27,132 elephants. The pachyderm population is stable, despite a decrease of 3,000 elephants (10%) from the last count in 2012. The change in numbers is attributed to the latest scientific methods being used for counting under the All-India Synchronized Asian Elephant Population Estimation 2017. According to the report, another figure has remained stable over the last decade —“an average of 400 people are killed each year in human-elephant conflict and about 100 elephants die.”
According to the census, elephants are found in 22 states and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. They are now confined to four isolated landscapes—north (Terai region), the North-East, central-east and south India. South India is home to 11,960 pachyderms, followed by the North-East (10,139). A majority of elephants, in fact, are now found outside protected areas such as national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. Today, they can be spotted in places like Bankura in south Bengal and Hosur in Tamil Nadu, where there was no record of the species a decade ago.
The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS-India), a non-governmental organization whose scientists first raised an alarm in 2015, is sceptical of the new numbers. Their research paper, Patterns And Determinants Of Habitat Occupancy By The Asian Elephant In The Western Ghats Of Karnataka, India, states: “Elephant numbers obtained from the Synchronized Elephant Census (SEC) lack scientific rigour, both because of the unreliability of the methods used and the mismatch between the population parameters and the spatial scale at which they are estimated. As noted by the Elephant Task Force Report 2010, the block and waterhole count methods used in the current SEC are not rooted in estimation theory, are subject to a number of biases, and are likely to produce misleading elephant population numbers.”
The WCS-India team has been rooting for robust science-based programmes to monitor elephant populations through habitat occupancy, population distribution and territorial expanse rather than a head count. “Elephant populations must be scientifically monitored to permit assessments of their dynamics and for the prioritization of protection and conflict mitigation efforts at important conservation sites across their range. Almost half of the Asian elephants’ habitat is either fragmented or heavily impacted by humans. An upswing in incidents of human-elephant conflict is severely exacerbating the endangered status of the species,” says Varun Goswami, a conservation biologist at WCS-India who focuses on Asian elephants, .
In fact, a report by the non-profit Wildlife Trust of India, “Right Of Passage: Elephant Corridors Of India” (second edition), released at the 12 August function, states that only 13% of the corridors identified have proper forest cover, compared to 25% in 2005. Two-thirds of the 101 forest corridors that are used regularly by elephants for local migration have become constricted owing to land-use changes. “At least seven corridors have been completely lost in the last decade and many are on the verge of being impaired. This has been due to the lack of any agency keeping a close tab on these corridors and preventing land-use changes,” says Sandeep Kumar Tiwari, co-author and programme manager, IUCN/SSC Asian Elephant Specialist Group.
North Bengal is said to have one of the most fragmented habitats. It has one corridor for every 150 sq. km of available elephant habitat, north-west India has one corridor for every 500 sq. km, central India has one corridor for every 840 sq. km, southern India one for every 1,410 sq. km, and the North-East, one for every 1,565 sq. km. Only 22% of the corridors have no human settlement. Two-thirds have highways running through them and one-fourth have railway tracks.
For many conservation biologists, however, the numbers hold little value . “India is quite unprepared in its knowledge base to deal with the problem of human-wildlife conflict, largely because of the lack of information on the human dimension of the issue, as well as lack of research on interactions between humans and wildlife in human-use landscapes,” says Vidhya Athreya, a conservation biologist with the WCS-India.
Most people still seem to believe that elephants (and wildlife in general) are restricted to forests. There are very few research studies on the ecology and social dimension of human-elephant (or other wildlife) relationships in areas outside forests.
On 12 May 2013, for instance, the residents of Hosur in Tamil Nadu woke up to find four bull elephants walking through their town, across residential colonies, breaking through compound walls. They took shelter in the wooded campus of the Government Silk Farm and moved out only late evening, heading towards the Jawalagiri Range.
“In 2010, around 70 elephants moved into the Sanamavu Reserve Forest in Tamil Nadu and then continued north. The herd crossed the busy Bangalore- Salem National Highway No.7 and crossed into Andhra Pradesh. These elephants returned the same way in early 2011,” says Sanjeev Kumar S.R., president of the Kenneth Anderson Nature Society, an NGO working on wildlife conservation in the Melagiri region of Tamil Nadu.
“This pattern,” he says, “continued to repeat through 2012 and 2013. By 2014 and 2015, stray individual elephants and small herds continued to stay back in the new areas long after the migration season got over in March-April. And it is now fairly well established that there are around 100-120 elephants ranging seasonally in this landscape, stretching from Bannerghatta in Karnataka across the Hosur forest division, all the way up to Kuppam in Andhra Pradesh. These elephant herds take shelter in small forest patches during the day and raid crops at night. Their diet has changed over the years and they are now largely dependent on crops,” he adds.
The situation is similar in south Bengal, where herds displaced from neighbouring Jharkhand due to mining are now dependent on agricultural produce in the districts of West Midnapore, Purulia and Bankura.
Human-elephant conflict has, in fact, become a serious issue in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, West Bengal and Assam. Attempts to check this have only transferred the problem to neighbouring areas.
Vast sums have been spent on elephant-proof trenches and elephant-proof fencing costing upwards of Rs5 lakh per kilometre —nothing has worked long term, but these remain the standard response to restrict elephants to protected areas.
Over the years, suggestions on alternatives measures have included steps that could potentially increase tolerance for conflict-prone species like leopards, and alleviate conflict-induced property and economic loss.
“The prediction of future conflicts between wildlife and people, and the design of holistic, lasting strategies that can effectively manage these conflicts, hinges on a clear understanding of conflict drivers over time and across space,” says Goswami of WCS-India.
They don’t see this happening.
The minister, the elephant expert and the director of Project Elephant (who also made a speech at the 12 August function) are all members of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL), a Central board that is meant to safeguard flora and fauna. Its recent decisions have, however, so upset conservationists that they have started calling it a “forest clearance board” for industry.
For the elephant, as well as other wild animals, the future looks bleak.
Out In The Wild is a column on the good, bad and ugly of nature conservation.
10 十月 2017 發表留言
in 【匯納百川】
野外大象族群仍持續受到威脅。斯里蘭卡官方調查，過去五年來，1171隻死亡的野生大象，自然死亡的只有104隻。其他「非自然」的死因包括了象牙盜獵，或是人類活動範圍擴大導致與大象發生的衝突，例如槍傷、通電圍籬，以及當地一種極不人道的誘餌炸藥「hakka patas」。
斯里蘭卡《島嶼報》（The Island）今年8月刊登一則報導，標題寫著「Hakka patas injures jumbo calf seriously」（叢林小象受重傷 兇手指向Hakka patas），引起注目。「hakka patas」是一種陷阱，包裹以黑火藥、石塊、鉛塊製成，對動物來說卻是美味的誘餌。一旦動物咬碎「hakka patas」，石塊與鉛塊互相碰撞、擦出火花，炸藥隨即引爆。
這種陷阱通常是誘殺小型動物用，但常被大象誤食。報導內提到漢班托塔港（Hambantota Port）地區的一頭幼象，嘴部就因誤食用南瓜偽裝的「hakka patas」而受到嚴重損傷，除了頷骨、牙齒有如被肢解般，也有約30公分長的象鼻因此被炸掉。
一般來說，遭「hakka patas」傷害的大象不會立即死亡，而是要經過三個月的折磨與掙扎才會漸漸喪生。
根據斯里蘭卡野生生物部（Department of Wildlife Conservation，DWC）統計，過去五年來，有1171隻野生大象死亡，其中只有104隻是自然因素；若只看去年的統計數字，279隻死亡大象裡，只有35頭是自然因素死亡。
主責野生生物健康業務、同時也是首席獸醫師的薩拉卡．普拉薩德（Tharaka Prasad）認為：「槍傷是一大死亡原因。另外，有些農夫會將藥劑放在農作物以毒殺大象；通電圍籬也可能讓大象觸電身亡。即使這些受傷動物被發現時還活著，牠們也只有一絲機會能恢復生命力。」
根據斯里蘭卡動植物保育條例，讓保育類物種傷亡，可判監禁或罰款斯里蘭卡盧比20萬到50萬元（約台幣10萬以下，斯里蘭卡月薪約為台幣9500元）。總幹事索里亞班德拉（Sooriyabandara）進一步指出，「無論是在保護區內還是外，使用hakka pattas陷阱都是違法的。但這實在很難稽查。」
各個國家公園都沒有足夠的員工進行監測、調查等工作，很難查出是誰放了炸藥或是誰下的毒。「大象可能會為了尋找水源四處漫遊，因而破壞通電圍籬進入村莊，引來村民開槍反擊。」其中一位國家公園職員也補充，由於沒有足夠的員工，迫使村莊只能向民防部隊（Civil Defence Force）尋求協助，但他們通常沒有受過應對野生動物的專業訓練。
野生生物部長佩雷拉（Gamini Jayawickrama Perera）在接受斯里蘭卡《星期日泰晤士報》（The Sunday Times）採訪時表示：「如果動物持續受到折磨，必須開始擬定新法，限制居民使用火藥，並且揪出火藥商。這至少需要新增1000名工作人員，目前已向內閣請示先行補充200位名額。」
2002年成立的斯里蘭卡野生生物保育協會（The Sri Lanka Wildlife Conservation Society，SLWCS），致力於人象衝突議題，每年在斯里蘭卡處理人象衝突事件的花費就約為1000萬美金。
傳統上，居民會使用爆竹來驅離象群，防止牠們侵擾農地等人類活動範圍（特別常用在收成之後的農作儲存場），然而使用頻率若高、大象習以為常後就會失去功效。SLWCS輔導農民使用太陽能充電的電圍籬，最近則嘗試在大象的路徑上養蜜蜂——這個方法在非洲能有效威嚇大象，但並非全球通用，因為環境條件不適合的時候，蜜蜂就會棄巢。另一個不樂觀的因素是，全球蜂群都因為污染和疾病（還包括無線電、電視和手機的訊號造成蜜蜂定位困難）處於衰退狀態。
SLWCS近期也試著種植柑橘類的樹木當作圍籬，好處是收成能同時增加農民收入。在坦桑尼亞南部的魯安達國家公園（Ruanda National Park）郊區，另一個基金會進行了不同的新穎方法——在作物生長季節時種植「辣椒圍欄」。
另一方面，大象保育的限制仍有很多，更精確地掌握族群狀態、增進對人象關係的理解，都是各國政府、保育組織還在努力的方向。今年8月，印度政府提出新的大象族群報告（Synchronized Elephant Population Estimation India 2017），參與研究的大象專家拉曼．蘇庫摩爾（Raman Sukumar）表示，印度目前約有27132隻大象，儘管比起2012年的數字減少了10%，但仍屬穩定族群。另外，根據報告，另一項數字也維持「穩定」——每年約有400人、100隻大象死於人象衝突。
野生生物保育協會印度分會（The WCS-India）則對此報告抱有疑慮，認為政府的估算方法並未考慮到棲地狀況如何影響到族群分布、數據也不夠嚴謹，該會保育生態學家瓦倫．戈斯瓦米（Varun Goswami）認為：「別再用數象頭的方式，應該納入棲地使用、分布、擴張領域等變因估算並監測大象族群量。用科學方法監測大象族群，才能在重要的保育區裡正確評估族群動態、找出優先保育對象和減輕衝突策略。如今幾乎一半的亞洲象棲地破碎化，或是嚴重受人類活動干擾，人象衝突的案例數與嚴重度都持續攀升，讓瀕危的大象處境更加嚴峻。」
多數人還未意識到大象（甚至其他野生動物）已經不只棲息在叢林，而可能迫於現實，在其他鄰近區域出現。目前也只有少數研究把目光放在叢林之外的人象關係。戈斯瓦米表示：「要能預測人與野生動物的衝突點、設計出可以有效管理衝突的策略，都取決於對衝突緣由的理解程度。」
喜歡這篇文章嗎？
快來媒體小農灌溉環境資訊中心吧！
※ 人與野生動物主題報導與 行政院農業委員會 林務局 合作刊登
In my healing journey and learning to attain the breath awareness, I become aware of the reality that all the creatures of the world are breathing the same breath. Take action, here and now. From my physical being to the every corner of this out of balance’s planet.
10 十月 2017 發表留言
in 【匯納百川】
菲律賓與泰國近年在發展工業化的時，歷經了發展與環境之間的嚴重衝突。兩國在礦業開採的規模擴大所帶來的環境破壞、與採礦過程不當所導致的環境汙染，都在1990年後有規模越來越大的人民反抗運動。然而，在此兩地環境反抗的環境運動者卻也都面臨相當困難的處境。
在泰國，工業發展所帶來的環境汙染問題央當嚴重。許多從東北亞國家如日本、韓國、中國甚至台灣到泰國投資發展的石化廠，並未如於其投資母國一樣，進行妥善的排放物管理，且大量的營業廢棄物也未受到妥善的處置，因此帶來嚴重的空氣汙染與土地污染問題。而泰國東部的許多大型工廠，更導致當地原有的農地與水源受到嚴重汙染，甚至無法耕作。
而當地從1990年起，開始反對採礦、反對污染的運動在當地開始蓬勃發展，至2014年為止，泰國國內已有11個反礦的據點，並有30個以上反對污染與石化能源的組織在當地活動。但根據泰國生態警示復甦（Ecological Alert and Recovery-Tailand，EARTH）團體統計，在1974年至2013年之間，泰國就有33人因參與環境相關抗爭運動而犧牲，其中有17人是為反對污染與礦業而死亡。
經濟發展與污染問題之間的兩難，在泰國造成嚴重的矛盾。且因為在地社區無法參與公聽會、過去環境影響評估經常低估對環境造成的破壞等問題，泰國人民對政府普遍不信任，且認為目前的環境影響評估是沒有用的。而近年民眾也開始對污染環境的廠商提出民事訴訟，要求其針對環境的破壞提出賠償。而在這樣的僵持下，政府難以持續推動工業化發展的政策，希望開發的企業也經常受到嚴重的阻饒。
菲律賓的礦業問題也相當嚴重。因為過往被西方國家殖民、20世紀美國在菲律賓採礦的歷史，菲律賓至今仍存留許多殖民式的採礦模式，甚至體現在1995年才通過的《礦業法》當中：如採礦公司可以是100%外資的公司、享有高額的獎勵補助、擁有特許權等，礦業公司甚至可以為了開礦而強制人民搬遷，但開採的礦物卻大量以低加工的方式低價出口至國外。
此礦業法通過後，菲律賓境內的採礦公司便大幅增加。單在1997年至2014年之間，大規模的採礦計畫就已從17處成長到46處，而且也引發工安問題，從1995年至2014年共發生19起礦災。而菲律賓總統杜特蒂上台後，採礦計畫仍然在增加當中，但當地的環境運動人士現在卻面臨了更艱困的環境。
在反對大規模、毀滅性採礦的活動一事上，菲律賓可算是世界上最活躍且最壯大的國家之一。過去20年間曾創出許多勝利，如2016年就曾讓世界第四大採礦龍頭嘉能可（Glencore）價值40億美金的Tampakan黃金計畫退出菲律賓，當時農夫與當地人在不同地方都以強烈的態度面對嘉能可，甚至不惜武裝抵抗。
然而，監督環境防禦者間違反人權問題的全球證人（Global Witness）在2016年的研究報告中，卻將菲律賓視為亞洲內對環境維權人士最危險的國家（世界排名第3）。自2002年至2016年，菲律賓國內就共記錄到144為環境維權人士遭到殺害，而在杜特蒂總統就職的第一年，就有17件與環境相關的謀殺案，可謂史上最血腥的一年，且其中有8位就與反對採礦有關。
卡里卡珊人類環境聯盟（Kalikasan People’s Network for the Environment）的全國協調員於現場提出人權呼籲，認為國家武力英離開農村、杜特蒂的反叛亂計畫必須終止、國家應追究軍事化支持者的責任，並對已知的肇事者提出法律制裁，以讓人民能安全地提出環境訴求。
喜歡這篇文章嗎？
快來媒體小農灌溉環境資訊中心吧！
※ 編註：民進黨與台灣環境保護聯盟9月2日~3日舉辦「2017亞洲民主論壇-環境、能源與永續發展」，包括台灣有10個國家、19個不同領域的NGO團體和學者與會，邀請來自日本、南韓、馬來西亞、越南、菲律賓、印尼、泰國、緬甸和柬埔寨等國的環境NGO、智庫與學者，討論各類環境議題，包括再生能源、氣候變遷、反水壩等。本文素材取自論壇內容。
10 十月 2017 發表留言
in 【太陽草原】
10 十月 2017 發表留言
in 【匯納百川】
高熱的時節，正在施工的馬路，瀝青味伴隨著轟隆隆的機具聲音。從酷熱大太陽底下，躲入這棟位於台北市臥龍街巷弄間的公寓，迎來的不是大快人心的超寒冷氣，而是微涼的舒適空間。雙層玻璃的落地窗清脆的關上，將噪音與濃烈味道隔絕在外。
這是台灣第一座，也是目前唯一一座拿到德國「被動式節能建築研究所」（Passive House Institute）證書的改裝公寓。綠建築工程師葉士傑將德國嚴寒乾燥氣候下產生的建築標準，加以在地化，打造適應高溫潮濕台灣的節能建築。房子的冷暖器能耗從每年每平方公尺133度降到43度，減少了近七成的空調能耗，就是最好的證明。
「被動式節能建築」（passive house）是德國非常普遍的建築標準。跟台灣常聽到的「綠建築」不同，被動式節能建築沒有生態多樣性、基地保水、低碳建材等多項繁複的指標，單純地只強調二點：舒適、節能。
被動式節能建築最基本的要就是符合每年每平方公尺能耗低於120度，這是指標準居住人口數，一年365天都在室內不出門，冷暖設備完全不停機的狀況下，冷暖氣與一次性能源，如家電、熱水、瓦斯、烤箱用電加總的能耗量。跟如此嚴格的標準相比，真實生活的能耗通常會更低。
對低能耗的嚴格要求並不是犧牲舒適換來的。德國節能建築的標準是冬天維持在20度，夏天25度，濕度在33-55%間，二氧化碳濃度則須在1000ppm以下。
冷暖氣不外洩，這一點在被動式節能建築做到極致。在嚴寒的德國，使用三層窗戶是基本配備；在台灣，至少要有雙層窗戶。
緊閉的空間裡，確保空氣新鮮的工作就交給「新風熱交換機」。「新風」說明它會源源不絕地將戶外的空氣引入室內，並將室內的混濁空氣排出。「熱交換」的作用則是讓冷（暖）度留在室內，就是只換新鮮空氣，但室內溫度仍然保留的意思。
雙層窗戶、新風交換機、隔熱材、冰水桶等多種設計併用，葉士傑成功地減少老公寓的冷暖氣逸散，讓原本每年每平方公尺133度的空調能耗大幅降至43度。
台灣與德國的氣候考驗不同，建築節能的挑戰也不同。例如，德國常將電器放置室內，讓機器散熱也為室內加溫，台灣則希望所有的熱都排到室外。德國的烹調習慣油煙少，台灣則是大火熱炒，廚房高油煙廢氣的回收更為不易。此外，台灣的高濕也是德國沒有的問題。
為打造這棟具示範意義的、台灣第一棟德國被動節能屋標準的房屋，葉士傑從設計上用盡心思，除了在中央空調管線加裝除濕設備外，油煙的過濾也須額外處理。他也必須與德國保持密切溝通，確保台灣的彈性做法取得德國認證單位的認可。
除了設計外，尋找合適的設備也不容易。效率高的新風熱交換機要從歐洲進口，還須考慮歐洲產品與台製產品配合的問題；現知符合標準的雙層窗戶廠商只有二家；施工品質也必須符合被動式節能房屋的標準等。
德國被動式房屋想在台灣落地生根，最困難的不是在地化的設計，而是新觀念的推展。
辦理多場講座的葉士傑無奈地說，台灣人「覺得」歐洲標準不適合台灣。也有人誤解，以為被動節能建築就是不能開窗，也不重視空氣流通。事實上，德國被動房屋是以外界最糟的環境狀況仍能保持舒適居住環境為出發的設計。如果外界溫度濕度適合，空氣品質良好，或是屋主就是想要開窗，建築設計並不會加以限制。
另一個問題是投資成本。葉士傑表示，德國設備配套完善，加上房屋原本就有防寒設計，加強被動式建築的節能設計只須增加8%的成本。德國電費比台灣貴四倍，以省下的電費評估成本回收，估計5至8年可回本。
以台灣這棟屋齡30年、室內30坪的公寓改造為例，工程費約280萬－200萬屬一般整修，80萬用於節能設計，約佔工程款的2至3成。加上台灣電價偏低，想回本可能要等上15至18年，實在很難成為建築改造的誘因。
德國從1990年開始試驗被動節能建築，發展至今20幾年的歷史。除了歐美，近年來，中、日、韓也都引進被動式節能建築，中國更以官方力量大力推展「被動房」。
原本學綠建築的葉士傑，在英國求學期間，經教授強力推薦，開始接觸到德國的被動式節能建築。同時擁有英國綠建築BREEAM AP和德國被動式房屋設計師執照的葉士傑一心想讓台灣也見證到這套建築系統。尤其，在缺電且有強烈節電需求的台灣，被動式節能建築的節能成效更加珍貴。
目前，臥龍街的這棟改造房屋經過夏季兩個月的設備24小時不關機測試，每月電費落在900元左右，如果不是在測試狀態，電費的節省就更可觀了。
被動式節能建築對台灣而言是陌生的新領域。葉士傑說，現階段他只能以企業形象、或被動房屋所提供的舒適感來說服大眾。同時，一步一腳印，從打照一棟棟的實體被動式節能建築做起，累積一整年的測試數據，用真實的節電成果讓大家看見在台落地生根的被動式節能住宅。
喜歡這篇文章嗎？
快來媒體小農灌溉環境資訊中心吧！
《心靈研磨坊 ─ 身心體能極限的突破，放慢步調，邁開腳步，輕鬆地悠遊著....》
【◎心靈研磨坊 – 曼陀羅藏(Ⅲ)◎】 
【容大千量】