Wong Li-Anne, Kim & Lu En Hui, Sarah

Year 1, LLB

National University of Singapore

INTRODUCTION

Singapore, located one degree north of the Equator, is situated in one of the most biodiverse regions of the world. Southeast Asia has often been described as a biodiversity ‘hotspot’, referring to its rich biodiversity and substantial rates of documented and inferred extinctions, especially for forest species. The founding of the island in 1819 precipitated an upsurge of urbanisation, plunging Singapore’s biodiversity into decline. However, following Singapore’s independence in 1965, then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew helmed the “Garden City” vision – a vision to transform the nation into a city with abundant lush greenery and a clean environment.  Various legislative measures implemented with this vision in mind have restored some of Singapore’s biodiversity. While much has inevitably been lost through urbanisation, Singapore remains one of the most biodiverse urban landscapes by far, of any city in the world.

This article aims to document the evolution of legislation affecting biodiversity conservation – more specifically, that concerning the protection of green spaces. Such developments will be traced from its initial conception during Singapore’s pre-independence (1819-1965), to the nation’s formative years post-independence (1965-2005), and to present day (2005-2017).

LAWS ON SINGAPORE’S GREEN SPACES

PRE-INDEPENDENCE (1819-1965)

Prior to the British colonization of Singapore in 1819, Singapore was covered in undisturbed vegetation and our native species thrived.

In 1819, rapid colonization began when the British first arrived on our shores leading to the rise in Singapore’s population and trade. In order to accommodate both population and economic growth, large-scale deforestation took place. The rainforest that covered the whole island was felled for the harvest of cash crops.   With the intense harvest of land for cash crops resulting in loss of fertility of land, farmers had to continually seek different forest sites for harvest, causing more trees to be felled. By the 1990s, only 7% of the original forest remained.

The rapid deforestation that took place caught the attention of the colonial government. In 1884, with the encouragement of Nathaniel Cantley, then superintendent of the Botanic Gardens, the Forestry Department had been established and a protected area of 343 ha in Bukit Timah was declared a nature reserve.  The reserve was demarcated by a boundary and patrol of the reserve began to prevent illegal harvesting.  Reforestation efforts also took place from 1884 to 1893, allowing 48 ha of land to be replanted with trees. This indicates the government’s slowly increasing efforts to promote conservation.

However, in 1931, the low economic value of the forests reserved prompted the government to propose the abolishment of all forest reserves, including Bukit Timah Nature Reserve, Kranji Nature Reserve and Pandan Nature Reserve. Bukit Timah Nature Reserve and parts of Kranji and Pandan Nature Reserve were put under the supervision of the Botanic Gardens, and all three nature areas were preserved and later re-gazetted in 1939 as forest reserves. This was later prevented by the intervention of the then-director of the Bukit Timah Reserve, Eric Holttum, allowing for a part of the Bukit Timah reserve to be preserved and re-gazetted as a forest reserve in 1939.

1942 marks the beginning of the tumultuous years of war in Singapore. Professor Hidezo Tanakadate of Tohoku University took charge of the Botanic Gardens and requested for some senior staff to continue their work in the Gardens. With both the local and Japanese staff working together, the Garden remained well-preserved and even remained an invaluable centre of research in spite of the war.

In 1951, the Nature Reserves Ordinance was extended to include legal protection of nature areas at Bukit Timah, Kranji, Pandan, Labrador and the Municipal Water Catchment area.  Pandan Nature Reserve was later de-gazetted as a nature reserve so that it could be converted into an industrial estate while Kranji Nature Reserve was de-gazetted to build a reservoir. This recognition of more nature areas for protection highlights the country’s growing efforts to protect the natural landscape.

POST-INDEPENDENCE (1965-2005)

1965 marked the dawn of a new era of independence, and with that, new legislative reforms targeted towards the building of Singapore’s new identity. On the environmental front, Singapore was envisaged as a ‘garden city’, a vision first articulated by Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew in 1967.

In 1975, its first effort to legislate the protection of green spaces was manifested in the implementation of the Parks and Trees Act. This Act aims to “provide for planting, maintenance and conservation of trees and plants within national parks, nature reserves, tree conservation areas, heritage road green buffers and other specified areas, and for matters connected therewith”. It mandated government agencies and private developers, to set aside spaces for trees and greenery in projects such as development of housing estates and the construction of roads and carparks. Parks had become an additional focus with many parks developed to provide more recreational areas and ventilation in highly-urbanised areas. The impact of such efforts culminated in the area of parks and green spaces increasing from 879 ha in 1975 to 11,259 ha by the end of 2015. The number of parks grew from 13 to 407 in the same period.

In July 1996, the Parks and Recreation Department was reconstituted as the National Parks Board (NParks). NParks was established to develop and manage parks and greenery in Singapore. Bukit Timah and Central Catchment Nature Reserve were both declared as Nature Reserves, while the Singapore Botanic Gardens and Fort Canning Park came under the management of NParks. 1 January 2002 marked the gazetting of two new nature reserves, Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve and Labrador Nature Reserve. Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve was added due to its rich biodiversity and extensive mangrove forest while Labrador Nature Reserve was gazetted because of its rocky shore and unique coastal vegetation. This was a significant step in conservation, given how land-scarce Singapore has become. According to part VII of the National Parks Act 1996, the gazettement of an area as a nature park or reserve would mean that any ‘activity which causes or may cause alteration, damage or destruction to any plant or animal or property’ will be prohibited and will be considered an offence. This facilitates the protection and conservation of such nature reserves. With dedicated effort and political will, the green cover of Singapore increased significantly from 35.7% in June 1986 to 46.5% in August 2007. While this is due to a large extent to intensive urban planning, such a sharp increase would not have been made possible if not for the fervent protection and management of existing green cover.

TODAY (2005-PRESENT)

Currently, public green areas of Singapore fall under the management of NParks, constituting more than 9,500 ha (13.6%) of the total land area of Singapore. Out of this land area, about 3,326 ha are categorised as Nature Reserves. The Nature Reserves managed by NParks include Bukit Timah Nature Reserve, a lowland dipterocarp forest, Central Catchment Nature Reserve, a lowland dipterocarp and freshwater swamp forest, Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve, a mangrove habitat and Labrador Nature Reserve, a coastal hill forest. The rest of the green areas include park connectors, public parks, playgrounds, roadside gardens and vacant state lands.

This will be the central focus of Part II of this series on Singapore’s legislative efforts to protect green spaces.

REFERENCES

1. See-Chung Chin, “Biodiversity conservation in Singapore,” Botanic Gardens Conservation International 5, no. 2 (July 2008): , accessed September 26,2017.
2. S’pore to become beautiful, clean city within three years. (1967, May 12). The Straits Times, p. 4. Retrieved from NewspaperSG; Lee, K. Y. (2000). From third world to first: The Singapore story: 1965-–2000: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew(p. 188). Singapore: Times Editions: Singapore Press Holdings. Call no.: RSING 959.57092 LEE-[HIS].
3. Cantley, N., 1884. Report on the forests of the Straits Settlement. Singapore Printing Office. Singapore
4. “History of Biodiversity Conservation in Singapore.” National Parks Board. Accessed November 22, 2017. http://www.nparks.gov.sg/biodiversity/national-biodiversity-centre/history-of-biod-conservation.
5. O’Dempsey, T. (2014). Singapore’s changing landscape since c.1800. In T. P. Barnard (Ed.). Nature contained: Environmental histories of Singapore (pp. 17–54). Singapore: NUS Press, pp. 29, 32–33. (Call no.: RSING 304.2095957 NAT)
6. Untitled. (1884, May 24). The Straits Times, p. 2. Retrieved from NewspaperSG; O’Dempsey, T. (2014). Singapore’s changing landscape since c.1800. In T. P. Barnard (Ed.). Nature contained: Environmental histories of Singapore (pp. 17–54). Singapore: NUS Press, p. 33. (Call no.: RSING 304.2095957 NAT)
7. Singapore forests. (1936, June 15). The Straits Times, p. 13. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.
8. “1942-1945: The Japanese Occupation.” Singapore Botanic Gardens. Accessed September 27, 2017. https://www.sbg.org.sg/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&layout=item&id=683&Itemid=242.
9. Sien, Chia Lin, Ausafur Rahman and Dorothy Tay Been Hian. The biophysical environment of Singapore. Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1991.
10. Yeh, S. H. K. (1989). The idea of the garden city. In K. S. Sandhu & P. Wheatley. (Eds.). Management of success: The moulding of modern Singapore (pp. 818–819). Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies. Call no.: RSING 959.57 MAN-[HIS]; Singapore. Parliament. Parliamentary debates: Official report. (1975, July 29). Assent to bills passed (Vol. 34, col. 1122). Call no.: RSING 328.5957 SIN.
11. Spalding. Mark, Mami Kainuma, and Lorna Collins. World Atlas of Mangroves. London: Earthscan, 2010. Page 125
12. Savage, Victor R and Lye Lin Heng. Environment and Climate Change in Asia: Ecological Footprints and Green Prospects. Singapore: FT Press, 2012.
13. Public Works Department, 1975, p. 48; National Parks Board. (2016). NParks annual report 2015-2016 (pp. 28). Retrieved 22 Novermber 2017 From National Parks Board website: https://www.nparks.gov.sg/about-us/annual-reports
14. Urban Redevelopment Authority. (1991). Living the next lap: Towards a tropical city of excellence (pp. 28–31). Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority. Call no.: RSING 307.36095957 LIV.
15. “Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve.” National Parks Board. Accessed November 22, 2017. https://www.nparks.gov.sg/gardens-parks-and-nature/parks-and-nature-reserves/sungei-buloh-wetland-reserve
16. “Labrador Nature Reserve.” National Parks Board. Accessed November 22, 2017. https://www.nparks.gov.sg/gardens-parks-and-nature/parks-and-nature-reserves/labrador-nature-reserve

A brief history of the Wild Animals and Birds Act — and two false(?) dichotomies

*(Quote from David “Dead Bird” Tan’s video: (https://youtu.be/7lQ0_fJ_Mv0))
** (Featured image by Lip Kee, used under CC BY-SA 2.0: (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Otter_-_pair_relaxing_-_Flickr_-_Lip_Kee.jpg))

Eric Bea

LLB Year 3

National University of Singapore

(This article is based on a presentation the author did as part of class participation in the module LL4021V/LL5021V/LL6021V/LX5103 Environmental Law.)

It was announced earlier this month that there would be a Private Member’s Bill to amend the Wild Animals and Birds Act (WABA) (Cap 351). WABA was enacted in 1965, and has only been amended twice (in 1991 and 2000). Together with Singaporeans’ relative lack of awareness of wildlife (as reflected in the opening quote), it is probably not too surprising that WABA tends to receive little attention. Yet, as times have changed, our understanding of wildlife conservation has changed in lockstep as well. Thus, it is timely that amendments to WABA are put up. However, before the amendments are made public, it is worthwhile understanding the history of wildlife conservation law in Singapore, as well as the major points of contention which have been raised in the intervening years.

The common law

As Singapore was previously a British colony, we received the English common law via the 1826 Second Charter of Justice. This continues today through the application of the Application of English Law Act (AELA) (Cap 7A). It is from the common law which we derive the bifurcation of “domestic” and “wild” animals.

The common law defined “domestic” animals as those which were “by habit or training live with or in the service of man”, and therefore could be the “property” of a person, if the domestic animal escaped, others were obliged to return it to the owner.

In contrast, a “wild” animal was simply the opposite of “domestic” and ownership was gained by capturing a wild animal. If the wild animal escaped, it ceased to be owned by its (former) captor.  However, this delineation frequently proved to be unhelpful — resulting in “wild” circus elephants (Filburn v People’s Palace and Aquarium Co. Ltd (1890), 23 QBD 258) and “domestic” zoo camels. (McQuakers v Goddard, [1940] 1 KB 687)

Preceding legislation

The first wildlife conservation legislation were the Wild Birds Ordinance 1884 (WBO 1884), and its replacement, the Wild Animals and Birds Protection Ordinance 1904 (WABPO 1904). To some extent, the WBO 1884 and WABPO 1904 entrenched the common law domestic/wild divide. A quick comparison is provided below:

WABA 1965

The purpose of WABA, when it was debated in Parliament, was twofold: firstly, it was for the protection and preservation of wildlife in Singapore, and secondly, to regulate the import, transshipment, and export of wild animals and birds.

The Minister pointed to Singapore’s strategic situation in the highly biodiverse region of South-East Asia; and noted that a large number of captured wild animals and birds were being channelled through Singapore for export to distant destinations like Europe and America, causing many wild birds and animals in this region, such as the Orang Utan and the Bird of Paradise, to come close extinction due to indiscriminate hunting and killing.

A comparison of WABPO 1904 and WABA:

Subsidiary legislation

WABA was then followed up by the Wild Animals and Birds (Bird Sanctuaries) Order 1970 (BSO), and the Wild Animals (Licensing) Order 1975 (WALO).

Wild Animals and Birds (Bird Sanctuaries) Order 1970

The BSO created six Bird Sanctuaries where the killing or taking, or netting or snaring of wild birds are absolutely prohibited, notwithstanding any licence to the contrary. These Bird Sanctuaries are:

• Botanic Gardens, including the NUS Bukit Timah Campus
• Bukit Timah Nature Reserve
• Central Catchment Nature Reserve (Macritchie, Peirce, Seletar reservoirs)
• Fort Canning Park
• Istana Grounds
• Sentosa

Wild Animals (Licensing) Order 1975

WALO, as its name suggests, only applies to wild animals. While section 3(f) of WABA allows the Minister to make orders for the “control, registration and licensing of any species of wild animal or bird”, there has only been WALO for wild animals thus far. Thus, there is no licensing scheme for wild birds at present.

Which brings us to the first of two possible false dichotomies with WABA 1965 which have been raised by environmentalists.

False dichotomy 1? Of “wild animals” and “wild birds”

In section 2 of WABA, “wild animals and birds” are defined as “all species of animals and birds of a wild nature, but does not include domestic dogs and cats, horses, cattle, sheep, goats, domestic pigs, poultry and ducks.” So, what is an “animal”?

So, no, WABA does not apply to either of them. (Source: Google)

Helpfully, section 2(1) of the Interpretation Act defines “animal” —  ’”animal” includes bird, reptile, fish and every kind of vertebrate animal and the young thereof’. However, the inclusion of “bird” in the Interpretation Act definition seems to overlap with WABA’s.

Nonetheless, this raises the question of whether invertebrates are protected by WABA — the irresistible inference is that it does not.

These are not “wild animals” either, according to WABA. (Source: Google)

Thus, there is a line of argument that considers this definition too narrowly-constructed. The Parks and Trees Act (Cap 216) gives credence to this argument with its all-encompassing definition of “animal”: “any mammal (other than man), bird, reptile, amphibian, fish (including shellfish), insect or any other living creature, vertebrate or invertebrate, and includes any egg or young thereof”.

False dichotomy 2? Of “domestic animals” and “wild animals”

This brings us back to the “original sin” — the domestic/wild divide. Just as WABA’s definition of “wild animal” was too narrow in failing to account for invertebrates, it is also too broad in not excluding some animals capable of being domesticated — this is particularly obvious when it comes to rabbits. WABA’s assumption is that rabbits cannot be domesticated. (Looking at the abandoned pet rabbits on the SPCA website, the SPCA probably differs, and rightfully so.)

In any case, the line between “domestic” and “wild” is frequently blurred in Singapore — there are formerly domesticated dogs which are abandoned and revert to ferae naturae; and there are also formerly stray cats which have been adopted from HDB void decks and become domesticated in all but name. The Animals and Birds Act partially recognises this fact by making Part IV (relating to animal welfare and prevention of cruelty to animals) applicable to both “wild” and “tame” animals (section 41). It is thus submitted that maybe, the true differentiation should be between “licensable” animals which are fit to be kept as livestock or pets, and “non-licensable” animals which, for safety and welfare reasons, are best left in the wild. The Minister should make the determination by way of subsidiary legislation as to what animals can and cannot be kept as livestock or pets.

Conclusion

It is high time WABA was revisited, and this is a good start. It would be remiss, however, if the broader context of WABA was not considered — that of the habitats that these wild animals live in and are inseparable from, as well. The Parks and Trees Act should also be strengthened, and the repeated calls for mandatory Environmental Impact Assessments in and around our green and blue spaces should also be heeded.

References

Melissa Tan and Hugh Tan, The Laws Relating to Biodiversity in Singapore (Singapore: Singapore: Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research, National University of Singapore, 2013).

Parliamentary Debates Singapore: Official Report, vol 23 at col 832 (16 June 1965) (Wild Animals and Birds Bill) (Mr Lim Kim San (Minister for National Development)).

Parliamentary Debates Singapore: Official Report, vol 79 at col 502 (25 January 2005) (Parks and Trees Bill) (Dr Geh Min).

Parliamentary Debates Singapore: Official Report, vol 94 at page 34 (7 February 2017) (Parks and Trees (Amendment) Bill) (Mr Louis Ng).

Chloe Hing

Year 1 LLB

National University of Singapore

INTRODUCTION

International illegal wildlife trade is valued between a shocking US$5 billion and US$20 billion every year, and constitutes the world’s largest illegitimate business after narcotics. An estimated 25% of this trade takes place in South-East Asia (SEA).

The single largest reason for illegal wildlife trade in SEA is traditional medicine, where tiger bone, bear gall bladder, pangolin scales and rhinoceros horn are commonly used as ingredients. Other common reasons include exotic pet trade and food delicacies. The illegal wildlife trade industry has detrimental environmental effects, depleting endangered species, decreasing biodiversity, and impacting the future ability of exporting countries to profit from their natural resources.

Unfortunately, Singapore is at the center of illegal wildlife trade in SEA. It was once labelled as “notorious as a laundering port for illegal wildlife”, due to its importance as one of the largest transshipment centers in SEA and the world. The severity of this problem, and the centrality of Singapore’s role in it, calls for an examination of the effectiveness of legal instruments governing illegal wildlife trade.

LEGAL INSTRUMENTS

International

The most significant international legal instrument governing illegal wildlife trade is the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). 183 countries are party to CITES and are obliged to implement national laws giving effect to provisions in the treaty. Singapore acceded to CITES with much reluctance in 1986, following mounting international pressure and a United States ban on wildlife and tropical aquarium fish imports from Singapore.

CITES operates through the issuance of permits for the trade of species whose conservation status is endangered by trade. These species are listed in three appendixes according to their level of endangerment, each with its own permit requirements. The first appendix, for example, consists of the most endangered species threatened with extinction, requiring both an import and export permit by the two parties. The second appendix consists of species that are less endangered but may be threatened with extinction unless trade is closely controlled, requiring only an export permit.

CITES is the first internationally-recognized framework for the regulation of illegal wildlife trade, and provides a strong platform for international cooperation to tackle a cross-border issue. The standardization of trading protocols for endangered wildlife also increases the ease of regulation and enforcement.

Regional

The main regional legal instrument is the ASEAN Wildlife Enforcement Network (ASEAN-WEN), which was implemented in 2005 as a regional solution to illegal wildlife trade. All ten SEA countries are party to it. To date, it is the largest regional law-enforcing entity in the world. ASEAN-WEN’s aim is to improve law enforcement networks across borders of SEA countries, by providing mechanisms for member countries to share intelligence and collaborate with one another.

ASEAN-WEN has been successful in tackling the pertinent problem of large wildlife trafficking syndicates operating across borders, as law enforcement authorities are able to collaborate across national borders more quickly and efficiently. In 2006, for example, a massive “shatoosh” (shawls made from the hair of critically-endangered Tibetan antelopes) syndicate spanning 3 countries was successfully uncovered and busted.

Being regional rather than international, ASEAN-WEN has the further advantage of enabling focused collaborative efforts, such as in information sharing and law enforcement, that would be difficult to carry out on an international scale. At the same time, its advantage over local legal instruments is its ability to allow countries to operate across borders, an essential ingredient in tackling an international cross-border problem like illegal wildlife trade.

Local

Singapore’s primary legislation for regulating illegal wildlife trade is the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (ESA). Imports and exports of scheduled species require a permit issued by Singapore authorities, while goods in transit require that the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) be satisfied that valid CITES permits were obtained. The scheduling of species is in line with CITES appendixes one and two, and local permits are issued in compliance with CITES provisions.

The ESA addresses an important gap in CITES: a lack of provisions for transshipment of protected species. It deviates from standard CITES provisions regarding only the issuance of import and export permits to include regulations for transshipment. This is necessary because of Singapore’s position as a major global transshipment port. This is similar to how countries like Germany and Switzerland have also enacted local laws to regulate the transshipment of protected species.

SUGGESTIONS FOR REFORM

There are several ways that CITES could be made more effective in achieving its aims. Firstly, it could impose restrictions on loopholes like “reservation clauses”. There has been overuse of these clauses, such as Japan’s holding of fourteen reservations in Appendix I species alone. Secondly, it could take a more determinative approach to induce countries to join CITES. For example, it could impose sanctions such as those successfully carried out in Singapore and Macau. Thirdly, it could increase regulations regarding the transshipment of protected species in addition to imports and exports, to make the legislation more comprehensive. Traders commonly use countries like Singapore for the storage of illegal wildlife before potential buyers can be found from countries with less rigorously-enforced CITES implementation laws.

There are also ways that ESA could be made more effective. Firstly, sentencing powers could be increased. Current sentencing powers (up to $5000 fine and one-year imprisonment for a first-time offence) are too low to serve as sufficient deterrence to traders. Secondly, the ESA could be more closely aligned with CITES regulations to ensure uniformity, avoid confusion and facilitate enforcement.

Finally, a more holistic approach could be adopted by all legislations. Firstly, the education of consumers and traders could reduce demand on the ground. For example, in Taiwan, awareness of conservation issues was successfully raised among the traditional Chinese medicine community and general public through advertisements and workshops. Secondly, incentive programs could be initiated to encourage traders to stop dealing with, or find substitutes for, illegal wildlife products. Such schemes have been successfully carried out in London and Hong Kong.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the international legal instrument CITES; the regional instrument ASEAN-WEN; and the local instrument, ESA provide a somewhat comprehensive approach to tackling the issue of illegal wildlife trade. They are able to work hand-in-hand to deal with the problem at different scales, as there is sufficient alignment in their goals and regulations.

However, improvements could be made to both CITES and ESA. An increase in the severity of punishments and strictness of regulations could increase the effectiveness of both legal instruments. CITES could be made more comprehensive by enhancing regulations on the transshipment of protected species in addition to imports and exports. ESA could also be more well-aligned with CITES regulations to improve uniformity and enforcement efficiency.

Lastly, all three legal instruments could tackle the problem from different angles. Rather than focusing solely on the issuance and compliance of permits, they could also consider other approaches such as incentives and education.

REFERENCES

1. Burton Ong; Lye Lin Heng; Joseph Chun, Regulating International Trade in Endangered Species-Transhipments of Cities-Listed Species via Singapore, 2016 Sing. J. Legal Stud. 277, 306 (2016)
2. Claudia A. McMurray, Wildlife Trafficking: U.S. Efforts to Tackle a Global Crisis, 23 (3) Natural Resources & Environment 16, 18 (2009)
3. Eric McFadden, Asian Compliance with CITES: Problems and Prospects, 5 B.U. Int’l L. J. 311 (1987)
4. Gail E. Rosen, Katherine F. Smith, Summarizing the Evidence on the International Trade in Illegal Wildlife, 7 ECOHEALTH 24, 27 (2010)
5. John C. Cruden; David S. Gualtieri, Toward a More Coordinated, Integrated Response to Wildlife Trafficking and Other Natural Resource Crime, 12 U. Pa. Asian L. Rev. 23, 54 (2016)
6. Jolene Lin, Tackling Southeast Asia’s Illegal Wildlife Trade, 9 S.Y.B.I.L. 191, 208 (2005)
7. Lye Lin-Heng, The Implementation of the Convention of International Trade on Endangered Species in Singapore, 2 J. Int’l Wildlife L. & Pol’y 46, 63 (1999)
8. Timothy Barnard, Nature Contained, NUS Pte. Ltd. 245, 275 (2014)
9. TRAFFIC, COP 13 Briefing (2016)
10. Vadivu Govind, Sandra Ho, Consumer Report on the Trade in Bear Gall Bladder and Bear Bile Products in Singapore, Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (ACRES) (2001)

Eric Bea

Year 3, LLB

National University of Singapore

INTRODUCTION

Amongst environmental lawyers in Singapore, the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process for major developments is well-accepted, and there has been calls for the EIA process to be put on a statutory footing such that important elements of the EIA process such as public consultations and access to EIA reports become a mainstream and regular process.

However, with the rise of regional development master plans such as those for the Tengah New Town and Jurong Lake District, there is a need to consider all environmental and social issues in a holistic process, in order to truly attain the ideal of sustainable development.

Such a process already exists in some countries, known as the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). SEAs can be carried out on two levels: either a sectoral-type SEA (eg. a land transport master plan, energy production master plan, etc.) or a regional-type SEA (ie. a district, city, or other geographical area, including inter-national areas). The SEA process engages the public in decision-making processes which affect them, and this public participation, together with the precautionary principle, is recognised as a key element of sustainable development.

Principle 10 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development states:

“environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level.  At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities… and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes.”

Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration further states:

“In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities.  Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

This article will focus on the regional-type SEA as practiced in Scotland, and explore the possibility of introducing the SEA process into Singapore.

To illustrate the difference between the EIA and SEA, these are the key points differentiating the two:

THE SEA IN SCOTLAND

Scotland, being a component home nation of the United Kingdom (UK), which is (for now) a member of the European Union (EU), is subject to the EU Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, which seeks to integrate “environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes with a view to promoting sustainable development, by ensuring that, in accordance with this Directive, an environmental assessment is carried out of certain plans and programmes which are likely to have significant effects on the environment.”

Pursuant to the Directive, the Scottish Parliament enacted the Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Act 2005 (EASA) which sets out the requirements for SEAs. (The Scottish legislation describes SEAs as “environmental assessments”. This is not to be confused with an EIA, which are regulated by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011.) In general, most national, regional, or local development plans require an SEA, unless they relate solely to national defence or civil emergency plans, or financial or budgetary plans.  Local and regional development plans are decentralised to the 32 local authority councils in Scotland which are elected in their own right, and thus have a direct mandate from local residents to plan, direct, and manage their own affairs, including local and regional developments.

The SEA report requirements are fairly comprehensive, with a statutory list of environmental and social concerns which must be covered by the SEA report, including:

• biodiversity;
• population;
• human health;
• fauna and flora;
• soil;
• water;
• air;
• climatic factors (climate change response);
• material assets;
• cultural heritage, including architectural and archaeological heritage; and
• landscape.

The local authority council is required to open the local development plan, and the SEA report, to public consultation. Additionally, the council is required to notify the public of the publication of the local development plan, and the SEA report, by advertising a notice in at least one newspaper circulating in the relevant area, or other such means as to ensure that the notice is likely to come to the attention of the people affected / interested by the development plan. In addition, the local authority council is required to upload the report on its own website.

After the consultation period, the local authority council is required to consider the responses to the local development plan, and the SEA report (including any responses to that). It will then compile a finalised local development plan, taking into consideration all of the above and repeating the publication process in the same way as per the public consultation stage.

The entire process is overseen by the SEA consultation authorities — the Scottish Ministers (ie the Scottish Government), Scottish Natural Heritage, and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency.  They receive and review the reports and advise the local authority council on the SEA process and report. At the end of the process, the local authority council is required to monitor any significant environmental effects, and take remedial action where necessary.

As can be seen, the SEA process in Scotland goes beyond the traditional “brown” and “blue & green” environmental issues to take into account the social impacts of the masterplan. The holistic framework ensures that a comprehensive stocktake of the natural and human geography in the local area is considered, and that local views are taken into account. The SEA process also allows various stakeholders to resolve any sensitive issues at an early stage such that the local authority council is able to redesign its plan before committing to any project within.

THE SEA IN SINGAPORE?

Unlike Scotland, there is no EIA or SEA legislation in Singapore; therefore, no statutory framework exists to guide the development of regional plans. The Master Plan of Singapore is a statutory requirement of the Planning Act, and which must be reviewed every 5 years, pursuant to s 8 of the Act. It must be acknowledged that the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) has in fact conducted some form of public consultation through various channels such as exhibitions, focus group discussions, and public forums.

A case in point is the recently concluded Jurong Lake District (JLD) master plan exhibition, where the public was able to voice their opinions to URA to consider.  However, this comes after the projects in JLD have been plotted, such as the new Science Centre, and the Singapore-Kuala Lumpur High Speed Rail (HSR) terminus. The consultation process is also a relatively short 2 weeks, only one of which will be in the JLD area itself (the other being at URA’s office in Maxwell).  While the SEA process is not meant to challenge or undo these planned projects, the public consultation should have been introduced at an earlier stage to allow the public to give timely feedback such that the various projects can be improved to serve their target audience better.

More interesting is the Tengah New Town development. This involves the redevelopment of the Tengah area, which is currently mostly forest and scrubland, into a new public housing estate, under the direction of the Housing Development Board. A key concern amongst nature conservationists is that it sits on a key eco-corridor linking the Western Catchment Area (which houses rare local wildlife such as the pangolin and the leopard cat) to nature reserves in the Central Catchment area. While a forest corridor will be created to maintain the link between the two wildlife catchment areas, there will still need to be a wildlife shepherding process to ensure that the wildlife is evacuated to the two catchment areas to allow the Tengah development to proceed.

Which brings us to an interesting question: could the 42,000 homes slated for Tengah not be integrated into JLD instead, promoting a transit-oriented lifestyle hub centered around the Jurong East MRT/bus interchange and the HSR station? By creating residential developments within what is meant to be the second business district, rather than adjacent to it, it would reduce, if not obviate, the need to commute in and out of the business district. The Tengah forest area could also have been left as-is as well.

Already, there are concerns that the JLD will suffer from a glut of office space — could this have been developed into model public housing along the lines of The Pinnacle@Duxton, providing the critical mass of people needed to keep the JLD alive after-hours? (That being said, it must also be taken into account that there will indeed be residential developments in the HSR terminus area, to the tune of 20,000 homes — but this is likely to be privately developed. This does not even take into account the land available from the vacation of the Science Centre from its existing location when it moves to the new location.)

Singapore has committed itself to sustainable development through the Sustainable Singapore Blueprint (SSB). The SSB itself encourages civic participation, and seeks to inspire Singaporeans to play a part in building a liveable and sustainable Singapore.

At the end of the day, deference must be given to the Executive to implement policies that benefit the people. It has a mandate to govern, and that should always be respected. Singapore’s governance model is based on “consensus, not conflict”. It is submitted that the SEA process, being an upstream process, would allow for more consensus in decision-making in land use planning in Singapore, by bringing the public on board at an earlier stage to allow deconflicting of the positions of various stakeholders in society.

While Singapore is already adopting parts of the SEA process, it needs to be put on firmer footing with a more structured process laid out in legislation. It would also provide for a common reference point as to the various environmental and social factors that need to be taken into account. With the upcoming developments of the North Coast, and Southern Waterfront being developed, it would be a good idea to have a comprehensive and holistic assessment of these regional development strategies through a complete SEA process, allowing for all positive and negative impacts to be brought to the table for consideration by the public. Being coastal developments, we should ensure that the developments do not cause knock-on damage to coastal habitats, amongst others.

At the end of the day, we need to make sure we do what is right. There must be safeguards to ensure that all options are considered and that we choose the most sustainable option. After all, “if we pollute the air, water and soil that keep us alive and well, and destroy the biodiversity that allows natural systems to function, no amount of money will save us.”

REFERENCES

• Audrey Tan, “Parliament: Environmental study, wildlife shepherding plan to be done in Tengah” (4 April 2017), Straits Times, online: <http://www.straitstimes.com/politics/parliament-environmental-study-wildlife-shepherding-plan-to-be-done-in-tengah&gt;.
• EC, Commission Directive 2001/42/EC on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (SEA Directive), [2001] OJ L 197/30 at Article 1.
• Iliyas Juanda, “Tengah town to be built using smart, sustainable tech” (9 September 2016), Wild Singapore News, online: <http://wildsingaporenews.blogspot.sg/2016/09/tengah-town-to-be-built-using-smart.html&gt;.
• Lynette Khoo, “Govt studying plan to sell large land plots in Jurong Lake District” (26 August 2017), Business Times, online: <http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/government-economy/govt-studying-plan-to-sell-large-land-plots-in-jurong-lake-district&gt;.
• Ministry of National Development, 2014), online: <http://www.mewr.gov.sg/ssb/files/ssb2015.pdf&gt;.
• Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources & Ministry of National Development, Sustainable Singapore Blueprint 2015 (Singapore: Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources and
• Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources & Ministry of National Development, Sustainable Singapore Blueprint 2015 (2016 Version) (Singapore: Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources and Ministry of National Development, 2016), online: <http://www.mewr.gov.sg/ssb/files/ssb2015-2016_ver.pdf&gt;.
• Parliamentary Debates Singapore: Official Report, vol 94 (Parks and Trees (Amendment) Bill) (7 February 2017) (Mr Louis Ng).
• Rachel Au-Yong, “Journey to the west and its lakefront CBD” (21 September 2017), Straits Times, online: <http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/journey-to-the-west-and-its-lakefront-cbd&gt;.
• Scottish Government, “About Local Government in Scotland” (1 September 2017), online: <http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Government/local-government/localg&gt;.
• Scottish Government, “Local Government in Scotland” (1 September 2017), online: <http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Government/local-government&gt;.
• Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD Technical Series No. 26: Biodiversity in Impact Assessment: Background Document to CBD Decision VIII/28: Voluntary Guidelines on Biodiversity-Inclusive Impact Assessment (Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2006).
• UNCED, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, UN Doc A/CONF.151/26(Vol.I), August 1992.
• Urban Redevelopment Authority, “Greater Southern Waterfront” (28 July 2016), online: <https://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/master-plan/View-Master-Plan/master-plan-2014/master-plan/Regional-highlights/central-area/central-area#post6&gt;.
• Urban Redevelopment Authority, “Jurong Lake District – Lakeside” (28 July 2016), online: <https://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/master-plan/view-master-plan/master-plan-2014/Growth-Area/Jurong-Lake-District/Lakeside&gt;.
• Urban Redevelopment Authority, “Jurong Lake District – Lakeside Gateway” (28 July 2016), online: <https://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/master-plan/view-master-plan/master-plan-2014/Growth-Area/Jurong-Lake-District/lakeside-gateway&gt;.
• Urban Redevelopment Authority, “Wanted: Public feedback on Jurong Lake District master plan proposals” (25 August 2017), online: <https://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/media-room/news/2017/Aug/pr17-55&gt;.
• Urban Redevelopment Authority, “Woodlands Regional Centre” (28 July 2016), online: <https://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/master-plan/view-master-plan/master-plan-2014/master-plan/Regional-highlights/north-region/north-region/woodlands-regional-centre&gt;.

Jasmine Goh

Year 2, Yale-NUS and NUS Law Double Degree Programme

National University of Singapore

INTRODUCTION

The process of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) in Singapore has always been elusive to the general public. The EIA, a systematic method of evaluating impacts to the environment that exists within a legal framework, has been adopted in many countries around the world. The EIA reveals potential impacts that a building project might have on the environment, and also conveys mitigating measures in order to reduce those impacts. While EIA legislation is lacking in Singapore, the government released an EIA regarding the recent Cross Island Line project that cuts through the Central Catchment Nature Reserve. This highlights that an EIA framework, although not in legislation, does exist within Singapore.

Recently, Second Minister for National Development Desmond Lee announced that steps would be taken to strengthen the EIA process in Singapore. This is a certainly a step forward in environmental law, as it is crucial to have a concrete method that allows the public to understand how the government conducts impact assessments on the environment. Many have made the case for EIA laws through comparative case studies with Singapore’s Asian neighbours. However, I contend that an equally important reason for legislating EIA would be its emphasis on the process of public participation, which is central to the EIA process.

WHAT GOOD IS AN EIA LAW?

In an article assessing Environmental Law in Singapore, Professor Alan Tan highlighted that the structure of Singapore’s dispersed authority and centralized planning has rendered EIA legislation less crucial. Professor Tan highlighted the following:

“…Land planning process [is one of the] instruments of policy to implement EIA in Singapore. Given the relatively effective and efficient centralized planning mechanism, the lack of an EIA law does not appear to have severely hampered environmental-management efforts.”

Similarly, a spokesman from the Ministry of National Development (MND) has also highlighted that there are processes that the Government has that renders an EIA law unnecessary. These processes are said to be “comprehensive”, taking into account “impacts for biodiversity, hydrology, water quality, air and noise pollution, vibration, recreation, sediment transport, navigation and trans-boundary impacts, depending on the project’s context”. Thus, the comprehensiveness of the current approach that the government has adopted appears to effectively replace any need for environmental legislation.

Yet, the EIA arguably provides more than efficiency and certainty in assessing impacts of building projects on the environment. In Hong Kong, the robust EIA Ordinance displays many commendable characteristics. Notably, one key feature of the EIA Ordinance in Hong Kong is its requirement of mandatory public inspection. While the Director of the project does not need to consider the comments made regarding the project in making her decision of whether to approve the application of permit, the existence of a public inspection clause allows the public to be actively involved in local environmental risk assessments. This ensures the accountability of the authorities to the public, allowing an avenue for feedback. Furthermore, this method is effective in raising awareness amongst the public about important governmental processes.

Looking homewards to Singapore, the publication of the EIA conducted for the Cross Island Line was certainly an achievement for nature-lovers. Through the EIA released on the Land Transport Authority website, the public was able to glimpse into the processes that the government adopted in assessing environmental impact. Yet, the EIA was lacking in the public participation element in its process. According to the precautionary principle, which the EIA process is deeply rooted in, broad participation is required in order to achieve successful legislation. While there was an opportunity for public consultation in order to ensure the robustness of the Cross Island Line project, the lack of it is unfortunate.

THE ROLE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The Aarhus Convention has strongly underlined the right for public participation in environmental decision-making. This fundamental right of the public is focal to EIA legislation. Public participation not only allows the government to procure feedback from the citizenry, but also bridges an important gap, allowing the government to gain the trust of the people.

Public Participation in Hong Kong’s EIA Ordinance

Despite its emphasis on public participation in the EIA process, the final decision lies in the hands of the project Director, as opposed to depending solely on public opinion to arrive at decisions. While the Singaporean government seems to have suggested that the final decision ultimately should rest with the authorities, the EIA Ordinance model in Hong Kong provides a good compromise that the Singaporean authorities could consider.

Public Trust Doctrine

The Public Trust Doctrine, which essentially provides that certain natural resources are held “on trust” for the public and therefore legal owners of these resources are entrusted to use these resources for specific public purposes, is identified as a key component of environmental law, and is relevant to the public participation aspect of EIA legislation.

In an article applying the Public Trust Doctrine to the Government’s decision to delay plans to reclaim Chek Jawa, Joseph Chun highlighted the following:

“The doctrine offers a means to legally require greater transparency and openness in the decision-making process when the State proposes to alienate or change the common use of these lands, apparently to the detriment of the common interest of the public.”

Currently, the public has limited platforms to hold the State accountable for the redevelopment of environmental resources. Implementing EIA legislation creates an avenue the public to do so. The emphasis on public engagement, transparency and accountability are in alignment with the Public Trust Doctrine. This would further demonstrate the government’s willingness to work together with the public regarding environmental matters, facilitating more effective communication between the government and the people.

Public Participation in Singapore

The idea of public participation in Singapore has not been new. A successful initiative that has involved much public participation is the Green Corridor Project. In 2015, the Urban Redevelopment Authority Singapore acknowledged public participation and community involvement in “achieving a key milestone for the Rail Corridor project”. Events such as the ‘Re-imagining the Rail Corridor’ Design Workshop allowed students, designers, and members of the public to come together to develop ideas for the future of the Rail Corridor. The Green Corridor is a living example of a communal space which both the authorities and the public share a role in shaping.

The idea of having public participation as a focal aspect of Impact Assessment has also been raised in other sectors. In particular, the closure of Sungei Road Market in mid-July has sparked further conversations of a Social Impact Assessment. A recent Straits Times article pointed out that an “independent study and assessment of the social impact of the [Sungei Road] market should have been commissioned” and “consultations with the wider public should have also taken place”. While MCCY Minister Grace Fu has defended the need of it, suggesting that the National Heritage Board has adopted their own “calibrated and sensitive approach” that foregoes the need for a proper Impact Assessment procedure, surely the benefits of it go beyond practicality. The suggestion of a social impact assessment would have allowed a platform where the public can come together and find a communal solution to the problem. The diversity of opinions, as well as greater expert advice would have potentially allowed for a solution worked out by both the government and the people.

CONCLUSION

The reasons for implementing an EIA law locally should extend beyond that of international norms. Given the importance of public participation in the EIA process, there is a huge potential for community involvement in policymaking, bridging the gap between the government and the public. This can result in greater benefits for both parties, as seen in the Green Corridor Project. The EIA process should be kept alive by the very citizenry that it influences. It is a two-way street: through the process of public consultation that the public is able to learn about environmental development, and the government has an opportunity to learn about the people’s needs.

REFERENCES

1. Chun, Joseph, “Reclaiming the Public Trust in Singapore”. Singapore Academy of Law Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 717, 2005. https://ssrn.com/abstract=918737
2. European Commission. “What is the Aarhus Convention?” Accessed 29 September 2017. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/aarhus/
3. Land Transport Authority. “Cross Island Line”. Accessed 29 September 2017. https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltaweb/en/public-transport/projects/cross-island-line.html
4. Martuzzi, Marco and A.Tickner, Joel. The precautionary principle: protecting public health, the environment and the future of our children. WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2004.
5. “MTR Sustainability Report 2014 — Environment” MTR Corporation Limited (Hong Kong), last modified May 2015. http://www.mtr.com.hk/en/corporate/sustainability/2014rpt/images/chart/ch4-2-large.jpg
6. Melody Zaccheus, “Spirit of Sungei Road Market”. The Straits Times, 12 March, 2017. http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/spirit-of-sungei-road-market
7. Nature Society Singapore. “The Green Corridor”. Accessed 29 September, 2017. https://www.nss.org.sg/banner.aspx?id=fuCxSM0A9zI=&type=2
8. Tan, Alan. “Preliminary Assessment of Singapore’s Environmental Law”, Asian Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Network. Accessed 29 September, 2017. http://www.aecen.org/sites/default/files/singapore_eia_casestudy_prelimassessmentenvilawinsg_1997.pdf
9. Tan, Audrey. “A better way to assess harm to the environment.” The Straits Times, 3 November, 2016. http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/a-better-way-to-assess-harm-to-environment
10. Tan, Audrey. “Steps to beef up process of wildlife impact assessment: Desmond Lee” The Straits Times, 26 June, 2017. http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/steps-to-beef-up-process-of-wildlife-impact-assessment
11. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. “Legislative Framework, EIA Ordinance.” Accessed 29 September 2017. http://www.epd.gov.hk/eia/english/legis/pt2.html#7
12. Urban Redevelopment Authority, “URA announces Rail Corridor RFP awards and exhibition”. Accessed 29 September, 2017. https://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/media-room/news/2015/nov/pr15-53.aspx
13. Picture credit: Photo by Gem & Lauris RK on Unsplash

Muhammad Nurshazny Ramlan

Year 4, LLB

National University of Singapore

The Cross–Island Line (CRL) Debate – Civil Society Needs to Play Active Role in Pushing for Legislation

In the 2013 Land Transport Masterplan, the Land Transport Authority announced plans to build the Cross Island Line (CRL), a new underground MRT line, to relieve passenger traffic along the East-West Line. It soon emerged that the proposed alignment of the CRL would pass through the Central Catchment Nature Reserve (CCNR) near the MacRitchie Reservoir.

(Graphic credit: Land Transport Authority, Singapore)

An active debate in the public sphere soon ensued, and Singapore’s most vocal environmental NGO – Nature Society Singapore (NSS) – responded to the CRL by leading the call for the route to be diverted by moving it to skirt around the nature reserve instead. This opinion was supported by the possibility of unintended environmental consequences that may be arise from soil investigation works as well as subsequent tunnelling. Such a measure would in turn extend the route by 9km, increase travel time on the MRT by 6 minutes, as well as costing the authorities S$2 billion more.

The first phase of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) conducted by the Land Transport Authority (LTA) in February 2016 assured that impact would be kept to ‘moderate’ levels if mitigating measures were effectively carried out.  However, civil society remained sceptical and unconvinced, pressuring the authorities to “study [sic] both the underground alignments” and assessing the “different impacts on various stakeholders – the nature reserve, businesses, home owners, commuters and taxpayers.”  An appeal letter by the Love Our Macritchie Forest movement to the Government petitioning in support of the alternative route garnered over 12,000 signatures.

In June 2016, LTA announced that it would put out a tender to appoint a specialist for site investigation works for the direct rail route. This came after “many discussions with nature groups, residents and other stakeholders, as well as takes into account the petition by the Love Our Macritchie Forest movement.”  NParks also gave approval for the soil investigation works in CCNR to proceed with the mitigating measures resulting from the “extensive public consultations and discussions” between LTA and nature groups.

Compared to other countries such as the United States, Canada, and Hong Kong, legislation in Singapore neither mandate EIAs to be conducted for development projects nor require public participation for any EIA conducted. Despite the existence of the Environmental Protection and Management Act (EPMA),  the closest it comes to having mandatory EIAs are found in section 26 and 36 of the Act. However, these provisions only require impact assessments for (i) activities that are likely to cause substantial environmental pollution, and (ii) hazardous installations with the potential of endangering public health due to the pollution it produces. Hence, both these provisions do not require a full comprehensive study of environmental impacts and has no component for public participation as expected of EIAs.  Active citizenry and responsive civil society is thus required to engage the authorities where development works have possibly serious environmental impact.

It is also noteworthy that environmental protection laws in the US and Canada resulted from pressure by civil society on their governments, in order to safeguard their forests and natural landscapes from development that can “significantly affect the quality of the human environment.”  This raises a question about the effectiveness of Singapore’s civil society and the government’s willingness to accommodate their interests. The CRL debate raised the possibility of more engagements with civil society by the authorities in future government–planned development projects, signalling a more open and transparent system. Environmental groups should use these opportunities to push for legislative safeguards to the different phases of the EIA process and the creation of an effective accountability framework for breaches of these safeguards.

PM Lee Hsien Loong spoke at the opening of Gardens by the Bay in Jun 2012 highlighting the new vision to “move on to the next phase” from being a ‘Garden City’ to a ‘City in a Garden’, with plans “to bring the green spaces and the biodiversity closer to our homes and workplaces.”  However, it is unclear if these transition will include the creation of robust environmental protection legislation to safeguard Singapore’s existing green spaces, including CCNR.

NSS President Dr Shawn Lum commented in an interview in Mar 2016 that the goal of engaging the authorities in the CRL issue was not to halt development, but rather to “build it while incorporating and respecting nature” because “it’s not really a case of one or the other.”  How development to improve quality of life ought to be balanced with preserving existing green spaces throughout Singapore as well as fulfilling Singapore’s international obligations under the Convention on Biodiversity remains ultimately in the hands of Singaporeans themselves. One thing is for sure – civil society will and need to keep pushing forward for the conservation and protection of Singapore’s natural treasures through legislation.

References

• Audrey Tan, “More than 12,000 signatures to re–think MRT line under nature reserve”, 6 June 2016, The Straits Times, online: < http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/more-than-12000-signatures-to-re-think-mrt-line-under-nature-reserve&gt;
• Jagdish, Bharati “Let’s develop Singapore while respecting nature: Nature Society president on Cross Island Line”, 19 March 2016, Channel News Asia, online:
  <http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/let-s-develop-singapore/2617388.html&gt;
• Land Transport Authority, “Media Replies: Government has a responsibility to study both possible CRL alignments”, 22 February 2016, online:
  <https://www.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=3&id=7db375f9-8a78-40ac-bc2d-4265d5bd57a0&gt;
• Land Transport Authority, “News Releases: Site Investigations to Study Two Alignment Options for the CRL”, * June 2016, online:
  <https://www.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=9e739684-b3c0-40b8-8e20-294274f3d35f&gt;
• Lye Lin–Heng, A Fine City in a Garden – Environmental Law and Governance in Singapore [2008] SingJLS 68, at 106
• Prime Minister’s Office, 28 June 2012, Speech by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the opening of Gardens by the Bay, online: <http://www.pmo.gov.sg/mediacentre/speech-prime-minister-lee-hsien-loong-opening-gardens-bay&gt;

Ernest Cheong

Year 1, LLB

National University of Singapore

INTRODUCTION

The Ramsar Convention provides the framework for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources. It was adopted in the Iranian city of Ramsar in 1971 and came into force in 1975. Since then, almost 90% of UN member states, from all the world’s geographic regions, have acceded to become “Contracting Parties”.

Article 1.1 of the Convention outlines a broad approach to the definition of wetlands. Under the Convention, wetlands encompass

“areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six meters.”

The specific aims of the Ramsar Convention can be summed up in its 3 pillars, which are as follows:

1. Working towards the wise use of their wetlands through a wide range of actions and processes contributing to human well-being through sustainable wetlands, water allocation, and river basin management, including, for example, establishing national wetland policies; harmonizing the framework of laws and financial instruments affecting wetlands; undertaking inventory and assessment; ensuring public participation in wetland management and the maintenance of cultural values by local communities and indigenous people; promoting communication, education, participation, and awareness; and increasing private sector involvement;
2. Devoting particular attention to the further identification, designation and management of a comprehensive suite of sites for the List of Wetlands of International Importance (the Ramsar List) as a contribution to the establishment of a global ecological network, and ensuring the effective monitoring and management of those sites included in the List; and
3. Cooperating internationally in the delivery of wetland conservation and wise use, through the management of transboundary water resources and wetlands and shared wetland species, collaboration with other conventions and international organizations, sharing of information and expertise, and increasing the flow of financial resources and relevant technologies to less-developed countries.

Singapore has wetlands that would benefit from the protections afforded by the Ramsar Convention. This article aims to explore the applicability of the Ramsar Convention to Singapore, and how it would enhance the protection of local wetlands.

CURRENT STATUS OF THE CONVENTION IN ASEAN

Worldwide, there are 2,289 Ramsar sites covering 225,399,512ha. Of the 10 ASEAN member states, 8 have acceded to the Ramsar Convention, with Singapore and Brunei being the 2 exceptions. There are a total of 53 Ramsar sites in ASEAN: 4 in Cambodia, 7 in Indonesia, 2 in Laos, 7 in Malaysia, 4 in Myanmar, 7 in the Philippines, 14 in Thailand, and 8 in Vietnam. They cover a total area of 3,121,348 ha.

CASE STUDY: MAI PO MARSHES

Hong Kong’s approach to conserving the Mai Po Marshes is illuminating. This case study is relevant to Singapore in two respects. First, Hong Kong is land-scarce and all available wetlands constantly under threat from being drained and developed. Second, the wetlands are geographically near a neighbouring region. The Mai Po Marshes are located close to mainland China’s Shenzhen city, which is not under the jurisdiction of Hong Kong’s government. Industrialization and land reclamation in Shenzhen also increase sedimentation in the Mai Po Marshes, and threaten their very existence.

In light of their Ramsar status, the Mai Po Marshes have been listed in Schedule 6 of Hong Kong’s Wild Animals Protection Ordinance (Chapter 170) (WAPO (HK)), with access to the area being restricted by s 13(1)(a) WAPO, which states that no person, shall, except in accordance with a permit in writing granted by the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation, enter into any area specified in Schedule 6. On a practical level, the reserve has been managed by the World Wide Fund for Nature (Hong Kong) since 1983, and runs guided tours in Mai Po Marshes.

However, unguided visits will require a permit from the Director; failing which, the offender is liable to a maximum fine of HK$50,000 on conviction. To enforce this law, nature wardens of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department are employed to patrol the marshes. As Mai Po Marshes goes up to the border with Mainland China, some areas in the marshes are also patrolled by the police.

China’s accession to the Ramsar Convention in 1992 has also opened up a forum for dialogue on the future of the Mai Po Marshes. Ramsar personnel have held meetings with stakeholders in the site, such as the Hong Kong SAR government, NGOs and urban developers. These have contributed to the Hong Kong government establishing two buffer zones to ensure that the long-term conservation of the marshes is balanced against development .

In summary, the Ramsar Convention allowed for a platform for communication and cooperation on the future of the Mai Po Marshes, and paved the way for the Mai Po Marshes to be protected under law.

APPLICABILITY TO AND LEGAL EFFECT ON SINGAPORE

According to Article 2.1, when a country accedes to 7the Convention, it has to designate at least one wetland as a Wetland of International Importance . This is subject to the site fulfilling minimally one of the nine criteria for identifying Wetlands of International Importance .

The wetland that comes to mind is Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve. Legally speaking, the reserve covers 202ha of land; the neighbouring Kranji Marshes, which is a public park (but with restricted access due to ongoing conservation works) covers another 56ha. However, the full extent of the Sungei Buloh wetland ecosystem is estimated at over 300ha. Using this larger figure, Sungei Buloh accounts for 0.41% of Singapore’s total land area. For comparison, in both absolute and proportionate terms, it is larger than Malta’s Ramsar sites: the Ghadira and Is-Simar nature reserves, which at 112ha and 5ha respectively, have a combined area of 117 ha, accounting for 0.37% of Malta’s total land area.

Sungei Buloh easily meets Criterion 2, which is as follows:

“A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered species or threatened ecological communities.”

Sungei Buloh is part of the East Asian Australasian Shorebird Site Network. Many migratory bird species use the reserve as a stopover when traveling from Siberia to Australia for the winter . These include the Masked Finfoot and the Nordmann’s Greenshank, that are endangered under the IUCN .

CURRENT STATUS OF SUNGEI BULOH

Sungei Buloh is recognized by the international community as a biodiversity hotspot. In 2002, Sungei Buloh was recognized as a site of international importance for migratory birds with Wetlands International presenting the Reserve with a certificate to mark its formal entry into the East Asian Australasian Shorebird Site Network, which includes Australia’s Kakadu National Park, Hong Kong’s Mai Po and Japan’s Yatsu Tidal Flats. The reserve was also listed as Singapore’s first ASEAN heritage park in 2003 .

Sungei Buloh has also received recognition from the local community — and is notable for the manner as to how it was granted Nature Reserve status. Unlike the other nature reserves, Sungei Buloh’s status came about as an initiative of civil society. In 1987, the Malayan Nature Society (Singapore branch) proposed to the government that Sungei Buloh be set aside as a nature reserve. This led to an area of 87ha being designated as a nature park in 1989. Eventually, on 1 January 2002, Sungei Buloh was officially gazetted by the government as a nature reserve. Accordingly, its name was changed from Sungei Buloh Nature Park to Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve.

The protections accorded to Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve are described in s8 and s9 of the Parks and Trees Act. These include bans on poaching, dumping of material, disturbance of animals, etc. Specifically, s8(2) of the Parks and Trees Act proscribes “any activity” that “may cause alteration, damage or destruction to any property, tree or plant” within the nature reserve.

Additionally, the 2008 Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve masterplan was conceptualized to balance between human use and human impact on the biodiversity of the area. To minimize human impact on the more sensitive parts of the reserve, Sungei Buloh has been zoned into activity areas (high, low and medium). The masterplan also includes enhancement works such as the removal of pondweeds to increase the water surface area accessible to marshbirds and re-planting . These measures help to preserve the ecological character of the reserve and ensure its viability as a functioning wetland ecosystem, which are consistent with the objectives of the Ramsar Convention.

In line with the masterplan, the Kranji Marshes were formally established as a public park in February 2016, in conjunction with World Wetlands Day.

The protection and maintenance of Sungei Buloh are relatively thorough and comprehensive. Due to international and local recognition, the government is proactively taking steps to safeguard Sungei Buloh and ensure its viability as a marshbird habitat. However, these protections fall short when it comes to guarding Sungei Buloh from being negatively impacted by neighbouring Malaysia.

RELEVANCE OF THE RAMSAR CONVENTION

Article 5 of the Convention is as follows:

“The Contracting Parties shall consult with each other about implementing obligations arising from the Convention especially in the case of a wetland extending over the territories of more than one Contracting Party or where a water system is shared by Coordinating Parties. They shall at the same time endeavour to co-ordinate and support present and future policies and regulations concerning the conservation of wetlands and their flora and fauna.”

The Convention provides for a framework by which countries can co-ordinate conservation efforts. This is of relevance to Sungei Buloh due to its close proximity to the state of Johor in Malaysia. It has a shared water system with the Straits of Johor, and is directly affected by developments in that area. However, under the status quo, there are no current frameworks for collaboration in place.

The current protections of Sungei Buloh may seem sufficient but they do not take into account the transboundary nature of ecosystems.

For example, crows from Johor threaten nest failure of other inhabitants of the reserve . Dead fish from fish farms in Johor have also drifted over to and polluted Sungei Buloh . These cases highlight the vulnerability of Sungei Buloh to external shocks, and emphasize the need for a working partnership with Malaysia that can be delivered by the Ramsar Convention.

CONCLUSION

Singapore’s Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve is a good candidate for a Ramsar site. While the Singaporean government has gone to great lengths to preserve the ecological character of the area, more can be done by way of collaborating with Malaysia through the Ramsar Convention to protect the reserve from external shocks.References

“Supporting Dialogue on the Future of the Mai Po Inner Deep Bay Ramsar Site”, Ramsar (21 October 2016), online: https://www.ramsar.org/news/supporting-dialogue-on-the-future-of-the-mai-po-inner-deep-bay-ramsar-site

A Guide to Kranji Marshes, online: NParks https://www.nparks.gov.sg/kranjimarshes

A Guide to Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve, online: NParks https://www.nparks.gov.sg/~/media/nparks-real-content/gardens-parks-and-nature/diy-walk/diy-walk-pdf-files/sungeibulohwetlandreserve_guide2014.ashx?la=en

A Guide to Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve, online: NParks https://www.nparks.gov.sg/~/media/nparks-real-content/gardens-parks-and-nature/diy-walk/diy-walk-pdf-files/sungeibulohwetlandreserve_guide2014.ashx?la=en

Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, Enforcement-Schedule 6, online: https://www.afcd.gov.hk/english/conservation/con_wet/con_wet_look/con_wet_look_enf/con_wet_look_enf.html

Audrey Tan, “Crows Ruling the Roost at Sungei Buloh Reserve”, The Straits Times (May 16 2017), online: http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/trouble-flocks-to-sungei-buloh-reserve

Checklist of Birds Recorded from Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve as at December 2011, online: NParks https://www.nparks.gov.sg/~/media/nparks-real-content/gardens-parks-and-nature/parks-and-nature-reserve/sungei-buloh/bird-checklist-sbwr.pdf

Designating Ramsar Sites, online: Ramsar https://www.ramsar.org/sites-countries/designating-ramsar-sites

Grace Chua, “Dead Fish Wash Up at Sungei Buloh Reserve”, The Straits Times (April 18 2014), online: <http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/dead-fish-wash-up-at-sungei-buloh-reserve&gt;

Media Factsheet, Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve (SBWR): Past, Present, Future, online: NParks https://www.nparks.gov.sg/~/media/nparks-real-content/news/2014/12/factsheetsbwr_past_present_and_future.pdf?la=en

Media Factsheet, Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve Masterplan: Phase 3, online: NParks https://www.nparks.gov.sg/~/media/nparks-real-content/news/2014/12/factsheetsbwr_masterplan_phase3.pdf?la=en

Ramsar Convention: https://www.ramsar.org/about-the-ramsar-convention

Ramsar Sites Information Service, online: Ramsar <https://rsis.ramsar.org/ris-search/?pagetab=1&gt;

The Ramsar Convention Manual, 6th Edition, online: Ramsar http://archive.ramsar.org/pdf/lib/manual6-2013-e.pdf

The Ramsar Sites Criteria, online: Ramsar https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/ramsarsites_criteria_eng.pdf

Timothy Barnard and Corinne Heng, “A City in a Garden”, in Nature Contained (Timothy Barnard ed), Singapore: NUS Press Pte Ltd, 2014., at 301.

Wild Animals Protection Ordinance, c 170, online: https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap170

The following is an excerpt from the pathway to paris: a commentary on the carbon pricing bill, which is a joint collaboration between ELSA and the NTU ASE Club, NUS BES Student Committee, and I’dECO – the Yale-NUS Sustainability Movement.  The full PDF version can be found here: http://bit.ly/elsaco2pricing

Introduction

In line with Singapore’s Climate Action Plan, the Singapore Government announced its intent to implement a carbon tax on the emission of greenhouse gases at the 2017 budget. Pursuant to that plan, which would put Singapore on the roadmap to meeting its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) to the Paris climate agreement to reduce Singapore’s emissions intensity by 36% from 2005 levels by 2030 to stabilize at 65MtCO₂e, the Government has drafted enabling legislation in the form of the Carbon Pricing (Draft) Bill (CPB).

It is heartening to see that Singapore has embarked on this journey towards climate action, beginning with this year being designated as the Year of Climate Action. The CPB is undoubtedly a milestone and important pillar in achieving our Paris NDC. However, we believe that Singapore can do more to set itself apart as a leader in the sustainability sector in Asia.

Further, we have identified certain issues in the CPB legislation itself which could be improved upon to further promote accountability, transparency, and efficiency in the implementation of the carbon tax regime. Additionally, we have included further policy recommendations to enhance and multiply the effect of the carbon tax regime on our carbon footprint. We have, in total, proposed 14 recommendations to enhance the CPB and the subsequent implementation of the carbon tax:

• Recommendation 1 – Carbon price escalator
• Recommendation 2 – Entity as the basic unit of account, not facility
• Recommendation 3 – A simpler taxation scheme
• Recommendation 4 – Reliefs and remissions to be publicly justified and granted by the Agency
• Recommendation 5 – Race to the top
• Recommendation 6 – Governance Advisory Panel
• Recommendation 7 – Free access to relevant Codes of Practice and Singapore Standards
• Recommendation 8 – Safeguards to protect I3P independence and professionalism
• Recommendation 9 — A Carbon Pricing Appeals Board with professional experts from relevant fields
• Recommendation 10 — A Public Register for Appeal Board decisions
• Recommendation 11 — No statutory restriction of appeals to the High Court
• Recommendation 12 — High Court and Court of Appeal hearings to be public by default
• Recommendation 13 — A whole-of-Government Footprint Fund to shrink our CO2 footprint
• Recommendation 14 — Singapore as an identifiable green hub in the region

We would like to record our gratitude to everyone who has contributed to this process, including our Professors (Joseph Chun and Jolene Lin from NUS Law, and Douglas Kysar from Yale Law), Melissa Low from the Energy Studies Institute, and all others who have contributed in a way or another.

We hope that this analysis of the draft CPB and our proposed recommendations will stimulate discussion in the research and policy-making communities and help inform Singapore’s efforts to put a price on carbon.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1 – Carbon price escalator

We propose that the carbon price should be gradually tapered upwards (by increasing the carbon price by SGD 5/tonne annually) to at least USD 50/tonne by 2030.

Recommendation 2 – Entity as the basic unit of account, not facility

We propose that the basic unit of account should be the business entity that owns the facilities concerned, and that the carbon thresholds for taxation be reckoned on the entity level.

Recommendation 3 – A simpler taxation scheme

We propose that carbon price should be administered through a simple taxation scheme, where the carbon price is charged based on verified emission values, should be used, to reduce the costs of transaction and administration.

Recommendation 4 – Reliefs and remissions to be publicly justified and granted by the Agency

We propose that Section 23 reliefs and remissions should be justified with proper reasons, and that these reasons be made public, on the NEA website. Further, the grant of such reliefs and remissions should only be granted by the Agency (NEA).

Recommendation 5 –Race to the top

We propose that the amount of GHG emitted by each entity, as well as the carbon intensity of the entity should be posted on the EMA website to inform consumers, and to facilitate consumer choice.

We propose that the GHG emissions of all other registered facilities and taxed entities to be made publicly accessible on the NEA website.

Recommendation 6 – Governance Advisory Panel

We propose that the adoption, amendment, and repeal of all definitions in the Main Act, regulations, guidelines, guidelines, and codes should be made in consultation with a standing Governance Advisory Panel (GAP) made of leading experts of relevant fields to advise the Minister on the latest developments and the good governance of the CPB system. Records of the proceedings of the GAP should also be made public through the NEA website.

Recommendation 7 – Free access to relevant Codes of Practice and Singapore Standards

We recommend that all adopted COPs, including SSs, should be made freely available on NEA’s website.

Recommendation 8 – Safeguards to protect I3P independence and professionalism

We recommend that formal professional standards for independent third party verifiers should be established. Further, a regulatory body for the profession should also be considered. Finally, a rotation scheme should be established and enforced to prevent capture.

Recommendation 9 — A Carbon Pricing Appeals Board with professional experts from relevant fields

There should be a standing Carbon Pricing Appeals Board, formed of professional experts from relevant fields. All appeals would be heard by this Board, which would be appointed by, but functionally independent of the Minister, and bring professional expertise to every appeal.

Recommendation 10 — A Public Register for Appeal Board decisions

The Ministry of Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) and the National Environment Agency (NEA) should create a public register hosted on either or both their respective websites to provide information on appeals filed and Appeal Board decisions, as this will develop the case law relating to carbon pricing.

Recommendation 11 — No statutory restriction of appeals to the High Court

The High Court should determine whether it should accept any appeal from the Appeals Panel by promulgating an Order in the Rules of Court. There should be no statutory restriction in the CPB itself.

Recommendation 12 — High Court and Court of Appeal hearings to be public by default

Hearings in the High Court and Court of Appeal should be heard in public, especially where they concern questions of law.

Recommendation 13 — A whole-of-Government Footprint Fund to shrink our CO2 footprint

The revenue from carbon tax should form a special Footprint Fund, and be combined with other existing funds, such as National Environment Agency’s (NEA) Energy Efficiency Fund and the Economic Development Board’s (EDB) Productivity Grant, to provide funding for schemes tackling carbon emissions in a direct or indirect manner.

Recommendation 14 — Singapore as an identifiable green hub in the region

Singapore, as part of its Paris contributions, should engage in capacity building and knowledge transfer of its domestically developed technologies regionally and globally through its research centres.

Amshar Addy,

LLB Year 2, Environmental Law Students Association

National University of Singapore

Preamble

In 2014, Sisters’ Island was announced as Singapore’s first marine park in a move welcomed by marine conservationists and nature lovers islandwide. Subsequently, in February 2017, amendments were made to the Park and Trees Act that enshrined the legal status of the Sisters’ Island Marine Park (SIMP) and allowed for greater protection for the marine park under the law.

This article aims to examine the legal implications of the amendment and its significance to marine conservation in Singapore. Reference will be made to international practices on marine conservation and specific case studies where possible.

While the legislative amendments are indeed welcomed as an initial first step, it is submitted that more can still be done in terms of legislation to protect our maritime areas for future generations.

Singapore’s approach to marine conservation

Prior to the amendment of the Parks and Trees Act (Cap 216) of 2017, the approach in Singapore to protect specific areas of our environment was to designate these areas as either Nature Reserves , National Parks  or Public Parks . The UNESCO World Heritage site, Botanic Gardens for example, is designated as a National Park under Part I of the Schedule while the Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve is designated as a Nature Reserve under part II of the Schedule.

Amendment to include marine parks

With the amendment of the Parks and Trees Act of 2017, the category of “marine parks” was added into the definition of a public park .  This means that offences in the marine park would attract the same penalties as per public parks, which is on the lower end as compared to National Parks and Nature Reserves .

Accordingly, the SIMP would also have the same level of protection as our terrestrial public parks under the Parks and Trees Regulations. Restrictions as to activities that would harm the biodiversity in the area would therefore equally apply to public parks and the marine park .

Map of the Southern Islands, incorporating SIMP (the cyan-shaded areas)

Legal implications of the amendment

It remains to be seen whether the general provisions already established for terrestrial parks in the Parks and Trees Regulations are sufficient to protect the biodiversity in our marine parks.

In the Parliamentary Debates in February 2017, it can be seen that there are still residual concerns despite the ‘public park’ classification, with regard to the scope and scale of protection to be accorded to the marine park.  Specialised legislation will still be needed to accord the park with the proper protection specific to a marine park .

Is the classification of the SIMP as a ‘public park’ appropriate?

Additionally, arguments have been made for elevating the SIMP to the status of a national park as per the arguments of Mr Christopher De Souza  and Assoc Prof Daniel Goh  in Parliament. S 7(3)(a) of the Parks and Trees Act allows for the designation of a national park or nature reserve for the purpose of protection and conservation of biodiversity in that area, which is in line with the stated goals of the marine park. Designating the SIMP as a national park will give it greater recognition as Singapore’s 3^rd National Park.

Legislatively however, it is submitted that the level of protection would not be greatly heightened. The restrictions on activities that would cause harm to biodiversity in both public parks and national parks are already largely similar. For example, the wording in s8 and 9 of the Parks and Trees Act, are replicated word for word in s8 (2) and s 5 of the Parks and Trees Regulations, with the difference instead being the penalties for the different areas as already mentioned.

It is likely therefore that the benefits of a re-classification of the SIMP are extra-legal instead, such as better management of the area, better enforcement measures and greater attention paid to the area, which means that the need for marine specific legislation may remain unaddressed through a reclassification.

Approach in other jurisdictions

To that end, a look at the marine conservation practices and legislation in other jurisdictions can indicate a possible solution to the problem. The practice of designating certain areas to be protected by law for the sake of conserving the biodiversity in that area, is one that is done globally and is a practice recognised by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

These Marine Protected Areas (MPA) are a conservation tool which the international community has resolutely declared its commitment to, through international declarations such as the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development  and the UN Ocean Conference of 2017 . Singapore’s first ever marine park represents a step forward in this direction. According to the IUCN definition of a protected area as “a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values”, it is likely that the SIMP will qualify as a protected area under the IUCN definition and can be managed with the aid of the IUCN guidelines.

A framework for developing marine specific legislation

For developing marine specific legislation that is appropriate to the SIMP, the legislation has to be closely connected to the conservation goals intended, for the legislation to be effective. The IUCN has developed guidelines for managing protected areas according to the different categories of objectives to be achieved as shown in table one.

Table 1: Definition and Primary Objectives of IUCN Protected Area Categories

Currently, the intended plan for the SIMP seems to be leaning towards category II  of the IUCN guidelines which allows for human interaction within the protected area for educational or recreational opportunities .

However, given that some areas are sensitive areas for corals and intended to be a coral nursery, perhaps certain zones need to be delineated and a greater range of activities prohibited, preventing human interaction, reflecting objectives closer to category IV or category 1a. In Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 , zones are clearly set out in Part V of the Act where certain activities such as drilling, mining and fishing are restricted, thus ensuring better protection of these areas. Because of its size, the Great Barrier Reef is a MPA that can be delineated into various IUCN conservation categories, to better manage the MPA, and this is reflected in the corresponding legislation.

Regionally, the Hong Kong Marine Parks and Marine Reserves Regulations (Cap 476A) also reflects the practice of zoning for an MPA. In s 3(1A) and s5(2) of the Hong Kong Marine Parks and Marine Reserves Regulations, activities such as fishing and water skiing are limited to special zones as specified in the schedule 1 of the Regulations despite the Hong Kong Marine Park areas not being as large as the Great Barrier Reef.

Thus, despite the size of the marine park, the common practice of zoning to limit the negative impact of human activities on the MPA indicate its effectiveness as a legislative tool and the need for similar legislation to be enacted in Singapore to protect its own marine park. Activities such as fishing and diving can be restricted to specified areas of the marine park in accordance with the management goals intended to be achieved, whether conservation or education.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is not enough to designate the SIMP as a ‘public park’ under the law and to treat it the same as our other public parks. Through a study of global norms, international guidelines and legislation from around the region, it is submitted that what is needed to maintain the effectiveness of the SIMP as a marine conservation success story, is legislation that is appropriate to the area. This can only be done if the SIMP is developed in accordance with IUCN guideline objectives to be achieved and with the appropriate legislative measures in place.

References

• 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, UNGOR,70^th Session, UNDOC A/RES/70/1
• Great Barrier Reef Act 1975
• https://www.nparks.gov.sg/gardens-parks-and-nature/parks-and-nature-reserves/sisters-islands-marine-park
• Nigel Dudley, ed, Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories (Switzerland: IUCN, 2008
• Parliamentary Debates Singapore: Official Report, vol 94 (11 September 2017) (Mr Christopher De Souza)
• Parliamentary Debates Singapore: Official Report, vol 94 (7 February 2017) (Mr Desmond Lee, Mr Louis Ng, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh)

In 2017, the Bachelor of Environmental Studies (BES) Student Committee and ELSA began planning for an NUS-wide undergraduate dialogue on sustainability and environmental issues – Sustainability+. Open to all faculties and majors, this dialogue aims to create a platform for NUS students to come together to share thoughts and ideas as well as inspire one another.

The inaugural Sustainability+ 2017 will be centered around rethinking Sustainable Development and asking the question “Is sustainability still possible?”. This will take the form of small group discussions based on topics of interest. This is a student-led dialogue which would see NUS students act as facilitators in a neutral setting. The dialogue will not necessarily seek to find answers to questions but to allow NUS students a platform to explore the topics.

A wider dialogue involving all universities in Singapore is slated for February 2018.

In collaboration with the Lee Kong Chian Natural History Museum, ELSA has curated an educational trail through the Singapore Botanic Gardens. Unlike science and biodiversity tours, our trail guides will use nature as a springboard to discuss wider legal and policy issues from an environmental perspective. Beyond scientific knowledge, participants will gain insights into important environmental issues such as bioprospecting, illegal wildlife trafficking, urban planning and management, and more.

This trail runs through a 6-hectare sized slice of Singapore’s primary tropical rainforest, situated in the Central Core of the UNESCO World Heritage Site, the Singapore Botanic Gardens. The boardwalk trail takes an hour to complete at a leisurely pace, giving everyone ample time to appreciate the flora and fauna around this precious piece of natural heritage.

The APCEL Visiting Fellowship Programme has been created to provide opportunities for environmental law researchers to come to NUS Law to conduct research and develop their ideas/proposals for tackling the pressing environmental problems we face in the Asia-Pacific region today. These problems include the disruptive effects of climate change, severe biodiversity loss, air pollution and over-fishing, just to name a few.

Find out more here at https://law.nus.edu.sg/apcel/visiting_fellowship.html

The ELSA Journal is the main outlet for ELSA members to engage in environmental law and policy issues, by asking themselves more questions about environmental issues that they are interested in, and seeking for the possible answers out there (if there are any).

We are looking for individuals who have been piqued by the recent environmental law issues, such as climate change; land use and conservation; wildlife trade; water management, etc. You will be free to explore your interests within the length, breadth, and depth of the plethora of environmental law issues. Members of this group will write up one article per semester.

It would be helpful if members have experience writing research papers of any kind — however, this is not essential due to the nature of the research products. Experience with writing an article would also be a helpful stepping stone to writing a paper for presentation at the environmental law conferences that ELSA is invited to from time to time.

Garden in the City (Part II): What are we doing to preserve what is left of biodiversity and greenery in Singapore?

By Wong Li-Anne, Kim (NUS LLB Y1)
     Lu En Hui, Sarah (NUS LLB Y1)

HOW DOES THE PARKS AND TREES ACT [2005] CLASSIFY GREEN SPACES?

• Definitions

In Section 7 of the Parks and Trees Act, it is interesting to note that the statute makes no distinction between the definition of a ‘national park’ and a ‘nature reserve’. Instead, they are conflated into a single composite definition, based on their functions. This is observed in Section 7(3):

“(3)  National parks and nature reserves are set aside for all or any of the following purposes:

1. the propagation, protection and conservation of the trees, plants, animals and other organisms of Singapore, whether indigenous or otherwise;
2. the study, research and preservation of objects and places of aesthetic, historical or scientific interest;
3. the study, research and dissemination of knowledge in botany, horticulture, biotechnology, or natural and local history; and

(d) recreational and educational use by the public.”

The Government has shed light on nature reserves being ‘areas where natural flora and fauna remain relatively undisturbed by human activity, and which provide food, shelter and breeding sites for diverse biological species’ . Three main principles influence the selection of these areas: ‘They must be rich in biodiversity; they must be mature, not transient, sites, and they must be sustainable’ .

Another type of green space provided for in the PTA is known as ‘public parks’. Section 2 defines ‘public parks’ as ‘any State land, any land belonging to the Board or any other land, which is (a) utilized as a public park, marine park, recreation ground, playground, garden, public open space, walk, park connector or green verge; and (b) managed or maintained by the Board or by any management body designated under Section 6A’. The management bodies designated under Section 6A refer to ‘any body to be a management body for any State land, land belonging to the Board or any other land that is managed as a public park on behalf of the Government or the Board, as the case may be’.

Green spaces hence fall within a hierarchy of legislative protection, with nature reserves and national parks receiving greater protection (through application of more rigid prohibition clauses on activities carried out in such areas) and public parks receiving less protection under the Parks and Trees Act.

• What factors contribute to the classification of green spaces?

The definitions of Nature Reserves, National Parks and Public Parks articulated in the PTA are premised primarily on the functions of these green spaces. However, these definitions may prove nebulous as it is still unclear what factors are considered when classifying a green space into the status of ‘national park’ or ‘nature reserve’. The Act still ‘remains silent on the criteria considered in the selection, addition, variation or revocation of areas as national parks and nature reserves’ .

This ambiguity has elicited many questions on whether or not certain green spaces, currently still holding the position of ‘public parks’, should be upgraded to the position of ‘nature reserve’ or ‘national park’, given the similarities in functions as described in Section 7 of the PTA. This article suggests that the following factors be taken into account when deciding to categorise green spaces as ‘nature reserves’ or ‘national parks’, with respect to case studies on Sisters’ Islands Marine Park (“SIMP”) and Pulau Ubin.  SIMP spans about 40 ha around Sisters’ Islands and along the western reefs of St John’s Island and Pulau Tekukor, home to a vibrant array of coral reefs, sandy shores and seagrass areas . Pulau Ubin is an island situated just off the north-eastern corner of mainland Singapore. It is a sanctuary for a great variety of wildlife, including the Chek Jawa Wetlands, one of the world’s richest ecosystems.

1. Level of biodiversity present in green space that necessitates legislative protection

The first case study centers on whether Singapore’s first marine park at Sister’s Island should be promoted to such a status. As contended by Nominated Member of Parliament, Assoc Prof Daniel Goh during the Parliamentary Debates over the passing of the Parks and Trees (Amendment) Bill in 2017, the marine park holds the status of ‘public park’. This is despite how the Bill describes the park to take on the characteristics of a nature reserve; it is defined as ‘any area of the sea or seabed that is set aside for conservation of marine organisms and is designated in Part III of the Schedule ’. The purpose of this marine park align well with that of nature reserves and national parks – for conservation, research, outreach and education on marine biodiversity. Why then, has it been placed on the same footing as more than 300 other public parks? Given that the marine park was established to protect Singapore’s unique and endangered marine biodiversity, it is crucial that protections afforded to nature reserves such as those under sections 8 and 9 of the PTA, wherein persons are restricted from collecting, capturing and displacing any plants and animals, are applied to this marine park as well.

The second case study considers whether Pulau Ubin island should be upgraded to the status of “nature reserve”. Currently, Pulau Ubin is classified as a ‘Nature Area’, which is defined by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) as an area with “significant biodiversity that will be retained for as long as development is not needed”.  This public park is protected under the Parks and Trees Act, and its subsidiary legislation, the Parks and Trees Regulations. This article contends that while it may receive some statutory protection, such protection is limited and inadequate. The ecological and biodiversity significance of Ubin should warrant it to hold a higher status as a ‘nature reserve’ as this site deserves greater protection. Ubin is home to a variety of wildlife habitats such as the largest remaining portion of Singapore’s mangrove, covering 149ha, and 800 ha of secondary forest, scrubland, freshwater ponds, tidal mudflats orchards and plantations, rocky shoreline, and marine habitats like seagrass beds, lowtide exposed sandbar and coral rubble area.   Such a diversity of habitats has provided a home for a great diversity and quantity of wildlife including 712 native plant species and 30 native mammal species. This is an important conservation site for many species of wildlife, with certain species such as the Brown Wood Owl and White-bellied Blind Snake being unique to Ubin alone.  The uniqueness and pure quantity of biodiversity present in Ubin makes Ubin a valuable site for the protection and conservation of the vast array of wildlife and a prime area of study and research in the area of botany, horticulture, biotechnology and natural history which can also be used by the public for educational purposes.  The above reasons why Ubin is a valuable site are synonymous with the definition of nature reserves laid out above. Hence, given Ubin’s unique and abundant biodiversity, this island should be accorded a higher level of legislative protection to preserve the biodiversity gem found here.

1. Empowering custodians to guide parks against threats unique to certain types of green spaces

SIMP differs from the conventional nature reserve, in that it is marine instead of terrestrial. Thus, its vulnerability to open seas is far greater than that of terrestrial nature reserves such as Sungei Buloh, which can be easily protected against the intrusion of visitors by constructing physical fences, walls or secondary forests. A threat unique to the marine park would thus be poachers and collectors; NParks needs to be empowered through such legislative measures to guard the marine park against such dangers.

Just like how SIMP differs from the convention nature reserve, Ubin is distinguishable as well, because of its geographical location. Unlike typical nature reserves that are located on mainland Singapore, Ubin is a separate island of its own, on the north-east sector of the Johore Straits. This unique location has allowed Ubin to play the essential role of dispersing wildlife from the Malay Peninsula to Singapore. The position of Ubin situated about 1-3 kilometres from both the Johore shoreline and from Coney Island and Changi point in Singapore  has allowed Ubin to be a platform for wildlife to move from Malaysia to Singapore, bringing a greater variety of wildlife into Singapore. This unique role of Ubin, which cannot be found in any other nature reserve or area in Singapore, cements its position as an irreplaceable site for biodiversity conservation, as it not only provides a shelter for a diverse range of wildlife, but also functions as a conduit for wildlife to travel from the Malay Peninsula to Singapore. Such a unique quality of Palau Ubin makes it a worthy contender of the status of a ‘nature reserve’ as it deserves legislative protection for its indispensable role in safeguarding biodiversity.

1. The need to signal to visitors to give due respect to the biodiversity present in the park

Where specific green areas may be especially vulnerable to treading, it is important that visitors are made aware of the area’s status as a highly-protected nature reserve or national park. In the case of SIMP, guided walks at the intertidal zone and trails marked out at diving zones, such as Big Sister Island’s floating pontoon, inevitably attracts visitors to the area. Similarly, the greater publicity surrounding Ubin has resulted in the number of visitors to Ubin rapidly increasing, be it because of the growing popularity of Chek Jawa, increase in campers, participants in recreational activities such as mountain biking or nature walks found in Ubin, may not bode well for the biodiversity on the island. In both Sisters’ Island and Ubin, exposure of the precarious eco-systems to human footfalls and temptation to touch and collect is dangerous and may not bode well for biodiversity. While outreach and education can highlight the importance of conserving such environments in pristine condition to the public, this may not be enough in legitimising the need for conservation by legally enforcing it. Thus, designating such natural sites as nature reserves as opposed to a mere public park or nature area will influence the psyche of visitors. Visitors will hopefully be induced to give due respect to the biodiversity present.

Conclusion

As Singapore moves towards a more conservation-centric society that is more focused on the welfare of biodiversity and our greenery, one possible step to take could be increasing the number of areas classified as ‘nature reserves’, so that more areas receive legislative protection to preserve the natural landscapes and biodiversity found there. The level of biodiversity, uniqueness of certain green spaces and a necessity to monitor the behaviour of public in certain green spaces are possible factors to consider in determining if a green space should receive greater protection.

Bibliography

Ong, Burton, Lin Heng Lye, and Joseph Chun. “Biological Diversity Conservation Laws in South East Asia and Singapore: A Regional Approach in Pursuit of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals?” By Burton Ong, Lin Heng Lye, Joseph Chun :: SSRN. October 04, 2016. Accessed October 02, 2017. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2847499.

“Sisters’ Islands Marine Park.” National Parks Board. Accessed October 02, 2017. https://www.nparks.gov.sg/sistersislandsmarinepark.

“$name.” National Parks Board (NParks). Accessed October 02, 2017. https://www.nparks.gov.sg/pulau-ubin/biodiversity/fauna-and-flora-of-ubin.

“Singapore Parliament Reports.” Sprs.parl.gov.sg. Accessed October 02, 2017. https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/topic.jsp?currentTopicID=00010788-WA¤tPubID=00010813-WA&topicKey=00010813-WA.00010788-WA_6%2Bid-b968f798-2050-4913-8f59-ad3fb5359048%2B.

“Media Room.” Parks, nature reserves important: URA. Accessed October 02, 2017. https://www.ura.gov.sg/uol/media-room/forum-replies/2014/jan/forum14-01.aspx.

NSS Position On Palau Ubin. 2014. Singapore: Nature Society Singapore. https://www.nss.org.sg/documents/NSS%20Position%20on%20Pulau%20Ubin-1.pdf.