Environmental Baseline Study Singapore

[Juvencio Parise]

Inaddition, development projects close to sensitive nature areas are subject to greater scrutiny and may be required to carry out more detailed environmental studies. The findings of all environmental studies are carefully considered in the planning evaluation process in order to determine the extent of potential impact and the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures, before a project is allowed to proceed.

Beyond this, proposed development projects near sensitive areas, such as Nature Reserves, Nature Areas, marine and coastal areas, other areas of significant biodiversity or with potential trans-boundary impact, are subject to greater scrutiny.

For such projects, technical agencies (such as the National Parks Board, National Environment Agency, Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore, and Singapore Food Agency) are consulted more extensively to determine if a more thorough environmental study is required. Developers may wish to factor in additional time and resources for such projects.

Environmental study findings are carefully considered by the technical agencies in consultation with community stakeholders, including the extent of potential impact and the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures. These reports are publicly available online, unless there are specific reasons to maintain confidentiality like security considerations.

Views and feedback from nature and community stakeholders will be sought on the findings. The Ministry of National Development/Urban Redevelopment Authority will assess the development project against its potential impact, before granting planning approval for the project to proceed. The developer is required to ensure mitigation measures and monitoring plans are in place to minimise any environmental impact before the commencement of any works.

JTC, on behalf of the Immigration & Checkpoints Authority, plans to carry out land reclamation at the northern coast of Woodlands to support the expansion and redevelopment works of Woodlands Checkpoint. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been conducted to determine the potential environmental impact and recommend suitable mitigation measures.

The public feedback period has closed. If you would like to view the report, please contact Ms Tabitha Isaac Benjamin at Tabitha_Isa...@ica.gov.sg and Ms Yap Hui Pei at Yap_H...@ica.gov.sg.

I understand that this forest patch is one of the few sizeable natural habitats (which include Kranji woodland, Clementi forest and Alexandra woods) located along the long and narrow 24-km Green Rail Corridor.

These core forest habitats are vital for native wildlife, such as critically endangered Sunda pangolins, common palm civets and wild boars, to rest, roost, forage and take refuge from apex predators, human disturbance and noisy motor traffic, otherwise they will be exposed to danger in open spaces and may also end up wandering into urban spaces and becoming roadkills or getting involved in human-wildlife conflicts.

(The above video records a sighting of a wild boar (whose species is invaluable for tree seed dispersal and regeneration of tropical forests) along the Green Rail Corridor between Pang Sua woodland and Kranji woods in February 2021. As noted in my feedback to NParks, wild boars are sensitive to disturbances of their natural habitat, which may force them to wander into residential areas. In 2017, a wild boar was involved in a conflict with a human being before it got into a fatal road accident in Hillview, about 2 km south of Pang Sua woodland.)

This is because besides providing climate resilience and ecological connectivity, Pang Sua woodland is also a sanctuary for human residents and visitors to seek relief from the heat and stress of urban living that affects physical health and mental well-being.

Taking into consideration the official responses to public feedback on the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports regarding recent planned housing development projects in greenfield sites, such as Bukit Batok hillside park area and Dover-Ulu Pandan forest in 2020-2021, I would like to address possible objections or questions concerning the conservation and restoration of Pang Sua woodland, which is proposed by Nature groups and Nature enthusiasts, including me.

As shown in the map below, Pang Sua woodland is a core habitat located at the Green Rail Corridor (as also noted in the EBS report). It is connected to Tengah forest and Western water catchment via Hillview and Bukit Gombak within 2-3 km in the south. It is also connected to Kranji woods and Sungei Buloh wetlands reserve, Kranji coastal nature park and Mandai mangrove mudflats in the north. To the northeast, it is linked to Bukit Mandai (within 2-3 km) and Central catchment nature reserve.

Critically endangered pangolins have been seen using Pang Sua canal and woodland as an ecological corridor, which may also be used by straw-headed bulbuls as a stepping stone. It is a vital conduit to ensure their safe movements and healthy genetic exchange so as to sustain their existence in the long term. Even the common species, such as rain trees (Samanea Saman), serve as shelter and provide food for less common species.

5. Should we not consider this issue as a zero-sum game, but rather consider how conservation and development can be done in tandem to have a certain balance, such as by replacing forest loss with replanted trees?

We can achieve that balance by prioritising the recycling of previously developed lands. It takes decades for newly planted trees to grow and mature to be able to provide the same level of ecosystem services and biodiversity support as the existing mature trees, so forest conservation needs to take precedence over tree planting, inasmuch as the latter is also important.

Hence, conserving the forest would be a cost-effective and self-sustaining nature-based solution to ensure water security, rather than removing the forest and replacing it with man-made rain gardens which will cost a lot of time and resources.

This is because if we continue to subscribe to the environmentally destructive capitalistic economic system that prioritises Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth over ecological health, then we will be tempted to justify clearing the trees to sell the land to developers, and give more business to architects, landscaping companies and property agencies.

(A case in point: property agencies were quick to chime in after the government announced their response to public feedback on the Environmental Baseline Study for Dover-Ulu Pandan forest in end July 2021.)

While we are at it, we might as well also spend more public funds to research, design and build carbon capture machines to offset carbon emissions, and then pat ourselves on the back for being able to do the job (albeit at great costs to the ecosystem) that Mother Nature has been doing for us for free.

Surely by creating (preventable) problems through incessant deforestation and urbanisation in order to solve them using expensive technology, we can then profess to achieve our Key Performance Indicators (KPI) and present Singapore as a smart and sustainable nation?

Or should we be working towards the implementation of a less resource-intensive and more sustainable and equitable economic model that actually respects ecological boundaries and connectivity, instead of finding ourselves gravitating towards greenwashing while heading towards self-destruction?

Yes, it is precisely because Singapore is a small tropical island that it should be respected for originally having tropical rainforests and mangrove forests that are best suited to the hot, wet and humid equatorial climate, instead of being dominated by the increasing number of buildings and roads that are worsening the urban heat island effect virtually every year.

May I also propose the following scientific nature-based conservation and mitigation measures to further enhance the environment in Choa Chu Kang N1 study area, for the sake of better climate resilience, biodiversity support and public health protection in the long term?

For example, if we do not practise responsible consumption and production, and even if we commit the grievous error of destroying Pang Sua woodland and all the other remaining forests in Singapore to build more BTO flats, there will still be a strong demand for public housing, since we have not addressed the insatiable human desire to keep wanting to consume more and more resources at the expense of the environment (and ultimately our quality of life and our very survival).

One of the reasons we keep losing our forests to the incessant building of new BTO flats is because of people wanting to buy BTO flats just to sell them immediately or shortly after meeting the five-year Minimum Occupation Period (MOP) to make quick profits.

Imagine the wildlife, such as pangolins, wild boars and palm civets, losing their forest habitats forever, while some humans occupy their former spaces just for a few years before moving or upgrading to another housing elsewhere.

Ethically speaking, is it worth destroying forests (which are also natural habitats and wildlife corridors) just to cater to this kind of frivolous demand for public housing in greenfield sites (when we can choose instead to educate the public about environmental stewardship and sustainability and redirect such demand for housing towards renting flats/rooms, buying resale flats or new flats in previously developed lands, etc)?

Ecologically speaking, is it wise to replace forests with buildings and parks where newly planted trees take decades to grow, mature and provide the same level of ecosystem services as the existing large trees to combat climate emergency (in which we are racing against time to avoid the worst ravages of climate breakdown)?

Economically speaking, does it make sense to ignore the socioeconomic and health costs of losing forests while spending huge amounts of public funds to mitigate floods, dengue and zoonotic outbreaks, mental health crisis, etc?

3a8082e126