Biodiversity: Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore - In a small city-state where land is considered a scarce resource, the tension between urban development and biodiversity conservation, which often involves protecting areas of forest from being cleared for development, has always been present. In the years immediately after independence, the Singapore government was more focused on bread-and-butter issues. Biodiversity conservation was generally not high on its list of priorities. More recently, however, the issue of biodiversity conservation has become more prominent in Singapore, both for the government and its citizens. This has predominantly been influenced by regional and international events and trends which have increasingly emphasised the need for countries to show that they are being responsible global citizens in the area of environmental protection. This study documents the evolution of Singapore’s biodiversity conservation efforts and the on-going paradigm shifts in biodiversity conservation as Singapore moves from a Garden City to a City in a Garden.
The Singapore Urban Systems Studies Booklet Series draws on original Urban Systems Studies research by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore (CLC) into Singapore’s development over the last half-century. The series is organised around domains such as water, transport, housing, planning, industry and the environment. Developed in close collaboration with relevant government agencies and drawing on exclusive interviews with pioneer leaders, these practitioner-centric booklets present a succinct overview and key principles of Singapore’s development model. Important events, policies, institutions, and laws are also summarised in concise annexes. The booklets are used as course material in CLC’s Leaders in Urban Governance Programme.
The Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore (CLC) was set up in 2008 based on a strategic blueprint developed by Singapore’s Inter-Ministerial Committee on Sustainable Development. The Centre’s mission is to distil, create and share knowledge on liveable and sustainable cities. CLC distils key learning points from Singapore’s experiences over the last half-century, while creating knowledge to address emerging challenges. It also shares knowledge with, and learns from, other cities and experts. The Centre works across three main areas - Research, Capability Development, and Knowledge Platforms. Through these activities, CLC hopes to provide urban leaders and practitioners with the knowledge and support to make our cities better.
ISBN-13: 978-981-4609-69-2 ISBN-10: 981-4609-69-2 90000
For product information, visit www.cengageasia.com 9 789814 609692
CVR_Bio_SL.indd 1 J1500515-Size: 205x265mm Spine: 5mm 4cx0c 17/6/15 2:42 PM S U S S B S BIODIVERSITY N C G S
i-xviii_Bio_SL.indd 1 17/6/15 9:37 AM Singapore Urban Systems Studies Booklet Series Water: From Scarce Resource to National Asset Transport: Overcoming Constraints, Sustaining Mobility Industrial Infrastructure: Growing in Tandem with the Economy Sustainable Environment: Balancing Growth with the Environment Housing: Turning Squatters into Stakeholders Biodiversity: Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore
i-xviii_Bio_SL.indd 2 17/6/15 9:37 AM S U S S B S BIODIVERSITY N C G S
Centre for Liveable Cities Ministry of National Development, Singapore
National Parks Board Ministry of National Development, Singapore
®
Andover • Melbourne • Mexico City • Boston, MA • Toronto • Hong Kong • New Delhi • Seoul • Singapore • Tokyo
i-xviii_Bio_SL.indd 3 17/6/15 9:37 AM ®
Biodiversity: Nature Conservation © 2015 Cengage Learning Asia Pte Ltd in the Greening of Singapore Singapore Urban Systems ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by the copyright Studies Booklet Series herein may be reproduced, transmitted, stored or used in any form or by any means graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including but not limited to Centre for Liveable Cities photocopying, recording, scanning, digitalizing, taping, Web distribution, Ministry of National information networks, or information storage and retrieval systems, Development, Singapore without the prior written permission of the publisher. National Parks Board, Ministry of National Development, Singapore For product information and technology assistance, contact us at Cengage Learning Asia Customer Support, 65-6410-1200 Publishing Director: Roy Lee For permission to use material from this text or product, submit all requests online at www.cengageasia.com/permissions Editorial Manager: Further permissions questions can be emailed to Lian Siew Han [email protected]
Senior Development Editor: Print Edition Tanmayee Bhatwadekar ISBN-13: 978-981-4609-69-2 ISBN-10: 981-4609-69-2 Development Editors: Deborah Yip Digital Edition Kenneth Chow ISBN-13: 978-981-4609-74-6 ISBN-10: 981-4609-74-9 Associate Development Editor: Willie Ong Cengage Learning Asia Pte Ltd 151 Lorong Chuan Senior Regional Director: #02-08 New Tech Park Janet Lim Singapore 556741
Senior Product Manager: Cengage Learning is a leading provider of customized learning solutions Lee Hong Tan with office locations around the globe, including Andover, Melbourne, Mexico City, Boston (MA), Toronto, Hong Kong, New Delhi, Seoul, Singapore Regional Manager, Production and Tokyo. Locate your local office at www.cengage.com/global and Rights: Pauline Lim Cengage Learning products are represented in Canada by Nelson Education, Ltd. Senior Production Executive: Cindy Chai For product information, visit www.cengageasia.com
Cover Designer: Every effort has been made to trace all sources and copyright holders of Lee Meng Hui news articles, figures and information in this book before publication, but if any have been inadvertently overlooked, the publisher will ensure that full Cover Photo (butterfly): credit is given at the earliest opportunity. Khew Sin Khoon
Compositor: International Typesetters Pte Ltd
Printed in Singapore 1 2 3 4 5 19 18 17 16 15
i-xviii_Bio_SL.indd 4 17/6/15 9:37 AM Contents
List of Exhibits ...... vii List of Appendices ...... vii Editorial Committee ...... ix National Parks Board ...... xi Foreword ...... xiii Preface ...... xv Acknowledgements ...... xvii
1. Introduction ...... 1
2. Biodiversity and Liveability in Singapore ...... 5
3. Biodiversity Conservation in Pre-Independent Singapore ...... 9
4. The Early Approach to Biodiversity Conservation in Singapore, ...... 11 Post-Independence
4.1 e Garden City 12 (i) City Greening* 12 (ii) Building up Expertise on Flora and Fauna 13 4.2 Early Government Institutions — Challenges and Evolution 14 (i) e Nature Reserves Board 14 (ii) Formation of the National Parks Board (NParks) 15 4.3 e Role of Non-governmental Organisations 18 4.4 Consolidating Environmental Conservation E orts 19 (i) e Singapore Green Plan 20 (ii) Pulau Semakau 20 Box Story 1: Planting Mangroves at Pulau Semakau 22
i-xviii_Bio_SL.indd 5 17/6/15 9:37 AM vi Contents
5. A New Era of Conservation ...... 27 5.1 Chek Jawa and Marine Conservation 27 5.2 e Gazetting of New Nature Reserves 29 Box Story 2: Conserving Labrador Shore 30 5.3 Biodiversity Surveys 31 5.4 International Developments 32 (i) Dispute with Malaysia over Land Reclamation Activities by Singapore 33 (ii) US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement 34 (iii) e World Economic Forum Environmental Sustainability Index Report 35 (iv) e Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity 35 Box Story 3: e Development of the Singapore Index 37 5.5 National Biodiversity Centre 38 5.6 A New Era of Biodiversity Conservation 39 (i) Conservation in a Heavily Urbanised Environment 39 (ii) Biodiversity in a ‘City in a Garden’ 40 (iii) A Marine Park For All 43 (iv) Managing Human-Wildlife Coexistence in the City 44
6. Future Directions and Challenges ...... 49 6.1 A Comprehensive Master Plan for Nature Conservation 50 (i) A Matrix for Ecological Connectivity 50 (ii) Integration and Use of Technology in Research, Planning and Management 51 (iii) Citizen Science — Towards Community Ownership and Stewardship 51
7. Biodiversity Conservation — Planning and Governance Lessons ...... 55
8. Conclusion ...... 57
References ...... 59 Appendices ...... 63
* Note: e sub-section ‘City Greening’ under ‘ e Garden City’, was adapted from portions of a case study titled, ‘Growing a city in a garden’, with permission of the authors. e case study can be found in Case Studies in Public Governance — Building Institutions in Singapore, a volume edited by June Gwee of the Civil Service College of Singapore and published by Routledge in 2012.
i-xviii_Bio_SL.indd 6 17/6/15 9:37 AM List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Area of Nature Reserves, Nature Reserve Bu ers and Number of Nature Areas in Singapore (pre-1961 to present) ...... 2 Exhibit 2 Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve (gazetted in 2002) ...... 5 Exhibit 3 Labrador Nature Reserve (gazetted in 2002) ...... 5 Exhibit 4 Prime Minister and Member of Parliament for Tanjong Pagar Lee Kuan Yew planting a Yellow Flame tree at Tanjong Pagar Community Centre on tree planting day ...... 12 Exhibit 5 Aerial photographs of Pulau Semakau and Pulau Sakeng before and a er reclamation ...... 21 Exhibit 6 Fieldwork at Chek Jawa ...... 28 Exhibit 7 e Oriental Pied Hornbill spotted at Kranji. Once presumed extinct, their numbers have been on the rebound with the Singapore Hornbill Project ...... 41 Exhibit 8 e EcoLink@BKE ...... 42
List of Appendices
Appendix A Timeline of Key Biodiversity Conservation E orts ...... 63 Appendix B Governance Tools for Biodiversity Conservation ...... 67 Appendix C Linking Biodiversity and CLC’s Liveability Framework ...... 69
i-xviii_Bio_SL.indd 7 17/6/15 9:37 AM i-xviii_Bio_SL.indd 8 17/6/15 9:37 AM Editorial Committee Chief Editor: Mr. Khoo Teng Chye, Executive Director, Centre for Liveable Cities Research Advisors: Prof. Neo Boon Siong, Fellow, Centre for Liveable Cities Dr. Lena Chan, Director, National Parks Board Project Leaders: Dr. Limin Hee, Director, Centre for Liveable Cities Ms. Sophianne Araib, Deputy Director, Centre for Liveable Cities Assistant Project Leaders: Ms. Joanna Yong, Assistant Director, Centre for Liveable Cities Ms. Hazelina Yeo, Manager, Centre for Liveable Cities Editors: Ms. Serena Wong, Adjunct, Centre for Liveable Cities Mr. Wu Wei Neng, Adjunct, Centre for Liveable Cities Researcher: Ms. Annabelle Ng, Manager, National Parks Board
Centre for Liveable Cities 45 Maxwell Road #07-01 e URA Centre Singapore 069118 www.clc.gov.sg/
i-xviii_Bio_SL.indd 9 17/6/15 9:37 AM i-xviii_Bio_SL.indd 10 17/6/15 9:37 AM HousingNational and Parks Development Board (NParks) Board
HDB,National a statutoryParks Board board (NParks) of the isMinistry responsible of National for providing Development, and enhancing was established the greenery on of1 Februaryour City 1960in a .Garden Its mission. Beyond is to buildingprovide qualitygreen infrastructure,and a ordable NParkspublic housingis actively for engagingSingaporeans, the communitycreate vibrant to andenhance sustainable the quality towns of ourand livingpromote environment the building. of active and cohesive communities. In its initial years,NParks HDB manageswas tasked over with 300 addressing parks and the 4 nature housing reserves shortage. Adding in Singapore to this and,is the to extensive this end, streetscape, HDB built rentalor roadside ats togreenery, meet the that accommodation forms the backbone needs ofof ourthe Citypopulation in a Garden. Later,. An in island-wide1964, home Parkownership Connector ats wereNetwork introduced is also .being Over developed the years, toHDB link hasmajor housed parks, the nature nation areas and and created residential communities estates . in modern self-contained As the lead towns agency across on Singaporebiodiversity. Today, conservation, more than NParks 80% ofhas the developed 3.8 million an residenturban biodiversitypopulation liveconservation in some 920,000model, whichHDB ats,aims ofto which conserve about representative 95% are home eco-systems ownership in ats, land-scarce and the Singaporeremaining. 5%,NParks rental also ats monitors. HDB and remains coordinates committed measures to its to missionenhance tothe provide presence homes of biodiversity that are a ordablein our urban to Singaporeans,landscape. especially the rst time buyers. NParks is working closely with partners in the landscape and horticulture industry to increase productivity, and provide training for all levels of the workforce. Enhancing competencies of the industry will support Singapore’s vision of being a City in a Garden.
i-xviii_Bio_SL.indd 11 17/6/15 9:37 AM i-xviii_Bio_SL.indd 12 17/6/15 9:37 AM Foreword
e history of biodiversity conservation in Singapore dates back to the 1880s, when it dawned on the British that the rate of forest degradation was unsustainable. Even then, it was feared that the climate would change in Singapore due to forest clearance. is was more than 100 years before the world became aware of the threat of global warming and climate change. To counter the rapid loss of forests, the British demarcated speci c sites, totaling 11% of Singapore’s land area at that time, to protect the remaining habitats. When Singapore became independent in 1965, the responsibility for biodiversity conservation passed to the new government. e Garden City, the brainchild of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, established the backbone upon which various biodiversity conservation initiatives were built. e rst Singapore Green Plan, that was unveiled at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development, where I was the Chairman of the Main Committee, focused largely on creating a clean living environment. Coincidentally, in 2010, I was invited by the then Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Dr Ahmed Djoghlaf, to deliver the ird Linnaeus Lecture in Nagoya, Japan. With the majority of human beings living in urban settlements rather than rural areas since 2008, I decided to speak on “Biodiversity and Cities”. e Singapore story is important to the world because it shows that a city need not be an enemy of nature and biodiversity. In fact, we can turn the problem of urbanisation into a solution for biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity: Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore traces the biodiversity conservation e orts of various groups of individuals, within and without government, and how international trends and platforms have opened the door for conservation to feature more prominently on the government’s radar. It also illustrates the evolution of the relationship between government and green NGOs over the years and how, moving forward, innovative thinking can continue to place Singapore on the world map as a model for urban biodiversity conservation. I hope that readers will nd this case study to contain useful information, insights and inspiration.
Professor Tommy Koh Ambassador-at-Large, Ministry of Foreign A airs Patron, Nature Society (Singapore)
i-xviii_Bio_SL.indd 13 17/6/15 9:37 AM i-xviii_Bio_SL.indd 14 17/6/15 9:37 AM Preface
e Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC) research in urban systems tries to unpack the systematic components that make up the city of Singapore, capturing knowledge not only within each of these systems, but also the threads that link these systems and how they make sense as a whole. e studies are scoped to venture deep into the key domain areas the CLC has identi ed under its Liveability Framework, attempting to answer two key questions: how has Singapore transformed itself to a highly liveable city within the last four to ve decades, and how Singapore can build on our urban development experience to create knowledge and urban solutions for current and future challenges relevant to Singapore and other cities through applied research. Biodiversity: Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore is the sixth publication in the Singapore Urban Systems Studies Booklet Series. e research process involves close and rigorous engagement of the CLC with our stakeholder agencies, and oral history interviews with Singapore’s urban pioneers and leaders to gain insights into development processes and distil tacit knowledge that have been gleaned from planning and implementation, as well as governance of Singapore. As a body of knowledge, the Urban Systems Studies, which cover aspects such as Water, Transport, Housing, Industrial Infrastructure and Sustainable Environment, expound not only the visible outcomes of Singapore’s development, but reveals the complex support structures of our urban achievements. e CLC would like to thank the National Parks Board and all those who have contributed their knowledge, expertise and time to make this publication possible. I wish you an enjoyable read.
Khoo Teng Chye Executive Director Centre for Liveable Cities
i-xviii_Bio_SL.indd 15 17/6/15 9:37 AM i-xviii_Bio_SL.indd 16 17/6/15 9:37 AM Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge Dr Tan Wee Kiat, Mr Ng Lang, Mr Kenneth Er, Dr Lena Chan, Mr Sim Cheng Hai, Ms Sharon Chan, Mr Eng Tiang Sing, Dr Geh Min, Dr Ho Hua Chew, and Mr Khew Sin Khoon for taking valuable time o to participate in the interview sessions; Mr Poon Hong Yuen, Dr Leong Chee Chiew and Prof Leo Tan for allowing us to use quotes from past interviews and speeches; Dr Geo rey Davison and Mr Robert Teo for providing quotes; and all NParks sta who have assisted in providing information and data at the researcher’s request.
i-xviii_Bio_SL.indd 17 17/6/15 9:37 AM i-xviii_Bio_SL.indd 18 17/6/15 9:37 AM 1 Introduction
istorical records show that the main island of Singapore had mostly been deforested by the end of the 19th century. By the time Singapore became independent in 1965, less than 10 per H 1 cent of its original primary rainforest remained. e rest of the country consisted of urban areas and settlements, cultivated plantations and secondary vegetation. In the decades since then, Singapore has transformed itself into an a uent city-state renowned for its economic stability, high quality of urban life and liveability. Despite its degree of development, and an almost entirely urban population,2 its nature reserves, parks and streetscape still retain a considerable amount of native biodiversity. e island contains more than 2000 native vascular plant species, more than 60 mammal species, more than 380 species of birds and more than 130 species of amphibians and reptiles combined. New species are still being discovered and new records made. Despite being one of the world’s busiest ports adjacent to a major global shipping lane, its coastal areas are home to 35 true mangrove plant species, over 250 species of hard corals and over 200 species of sponges. e area of land purposefully set aside for nature reserves and nature reserve bu ers has also increased in recent decades (see Exhibit 1). A globalised city-state with considerable biodiversity and greenery; a major shipping port with substantial marine and coastal diversity — Singapore’s journey of nature conservation is a story of delicately balancing the competing needs of population growth and development, with the recognition that diverse and healthy ecosystems enhance the attractiveness and quality of life for Singaporeans and visitors. is study provides an in-depth account of that journey, and Singapore’s evolving approach to managing biodiversity conservation over the decades.
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 1 17/6/15 9:39 AM 2 Biodiversity: Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore
EXHIBIT 1 Area of nature reserves, nature reserve bu ers and number of nature areas in Singapore (pre-1961 to present)
4500 30
4000 25 3500
3000 20 No . of na 2500
15 tu ea (ha) 2000 re ar Ar ea
1500 10 s
1000 5 500
0 0 Before 1961 1961–1970 1971–1980 1981–1990 1991–2000 2001–2010 Current
Nature Reserves (ha) Nature Reserves Bu ers (ha) No. of nature areas (incl nature reserves)
Number of Nature Areas Decade Nature Reserves (ha) Nature Reserves Bu ers (ha) (including Nature Reserves)
Before 1961 3,884.5 – n/a
1961–1970 3,335.3 – n/a
1971–1980 2,910.3 – n/a
1981–1990 2,795.1 – n/a
1991–2000 2,839.9 – 193
2001–2010 3,347.2 85.7 22
Current 3,347.2 196.3 24
Data: Nature Reserves Board and Government Gazettes
Endnotes
1 Corlett, R.T., “ e Ecological Transformation of Singapore, 1819–1990”, Journal of Biogeography 19 (1992): 412. 2 UNdata, A World of Information, Singapore (United Nations Statistics Division, 2015), accessed 1 August 2013, http://data.un.org/CountryPro le.aspx?crName=Singapore. 3 Bukit Timah Nature Reserve and Central Catchment Nature Reserve counted as 1 Nature Area.
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 2 17/6/15 9:39 AM Introduction 3
EXHIBIT 2 Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve (gazetted in 2002)
Source: Ria Tan, www.wildsingapore.com
EXHIBIT 3 Labrador Nature Reserve (gazetted in 2002)
Source: Ria Tan, www.wildsingapore.com
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 3 17/6/15 9:39 AM 01-72_Bio_SL.indd 4 17/6/15 9:39 AM 2 Biodiversity and Liveability in Singapore
ccording to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), biological diversity, or “biodiversity”, refers to “the wide variety of ecosystems and living organisms: animals, plants, A 1 their habitats and their genes.” Biodiversity provides the raw materials necessary for the growth and ourishing of civilisations. At a global level, it is crucial to human well-being, sustainable development and poverty reduction as it provides food and energy security, as well as protection from natural hazards such as res and ooding. Many cultures attach spiritual and religious values to ecosystems and natural landscapes, and these in turn inuence social relations.2 While we know that cities can impact biodiversity in many ways, for instance through pollution and habitat degradation, there is increasing awareness that biodiversity can also have multiple bene ts for cities. e United Nations (UN) Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) launched its Cities and Biodiversity Outlook in 2012,3 highlighting the contribution of diverse natural ecosystems to urban resilience and well-being, while the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change recognises the role of healthy ecosystems in climate adaptation. e Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health emphasises the links between biodiversity and human health, including the provision of medicinal compounds and the natural regulation of infectious diseases and pests. In the early decades, Singapore’s biodiversity was more closely connected with the well-being of its people. Local herbs were gathered for medicinal use, indigenous ora and fauna provided nourishment, and natural materials like palm fronds and bamboo were used in construction. However, by the 1970s and 1980s, many of these links were no longer as obvious, due to changing lifestyles and rapid urbanisation. As Singapore developed, the government’s foremost priority was to build housing and infrastructure, and create good jobs, to improve the well-being of its people. Singapore’s rst Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew sought to create a healthy, green and natural environment. A “garden city” was seen both as a
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 5 17/6/15 9:39 AM 6 Biodiversity: Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore
way to improve the quality of life by improving recreational and leisure opportunities, and a national brand to attract multinational corporations and global talent. Greening and biodiversity conservation can be related, but they are not necessarily the same thing. Increasing the area devoted to parks, streetscape and plantings ensured the abundance of greenery by the 1980s, but its impact on biodiversity was more ambiguous until recently. With Singapore’s constraints of extreme land scarcity and the competing needs of housing, industry, transport and critical public infrastructure, little attention was devoted to the conservation of biodiversity, and the total land area safeguarded as nature reserves declined until the 1980s. In recent years, biodiversity conservation has become more prominent in Singapore. is trend is supported by both international and domestic developments. Increasingly, countries need to be responsible global citizens in the area of environmental protection, and a good track record in this area can yield bene ts. is was demonstrated in Singapore’s dispute with Malaysia over land reclamation activities on Pulau Tekong, and the inclusion of environmental protection considerations in Free Trade Agreements in the 2000s. To play a constructive role in global knowledge sharing, Singapore contributed signi cantly to the development of the Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (see Box Story 3). On the domestic front, the trade-o s between biodiversity conservation and development have gained prominence in public discussion and in the media. Occasionally, civil society groups express concern over the adverse biodiversity impact of proposed development plans. In such situations, relevant agencies study the options carefully and weigh competing needs, making the decision based on the fundamental principle that the well-being of Singaporeans is of paramount concern. us, the government must constantly weigh and balance the e ect on well-being from development and biodiversity conservation, when choices are made. is process of considering options and weighing competing needs has sometimes resulted in the modi cation or delaying of development plans, to mitigate the loss of biodiversity. For instance, Chek Jawa, a biodiversity-rich area of coastal and marine habitats such as mangroves, mudats and sea grass, was originally slated for reclamation in 2001. e government, heeding calls from the public to preserve the area, decided to defer reclamation for as long as the land was not required for development. In the case of Bukit Brown Cemetery, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) modi ed its original plan to widen Lornie Road for the purpose of easing trac congestion as this widening would have encroached on the Central Catchment Nature Reserve. Instead, it proposed the building of an eight-lane road through the cemetery to achieve the same purpose. e proposed road was later recon gured in response to further feedback from civil society groups concerned about the loss of Singapore’s cultural heritage and biodiversity. e road will now a ect fewer graves, and a portion will be elevated to preserve the natural creeks running through the area. In other cases, aer weighing competing uses and assessing the biodiversity at the sites, the government decided to allow development plans to proceed. For example, residents in the Dairy Farm estate were not in favour of a plan to develop a patch of nearby secondary forest into high-rise condominiums, citing the loss of biodiversity and their view of the greenery, as well as an increased risk of oods during heavy rain. Residents of Pasir Ris Heights also argued that the plan to build an
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 6 17/6/15 9:39 AM Biodiversity and Liveability in Singapore 7
international school near their condominium would result in the loss of a patch of secondary forest which was a nesting area for birds, including a white-bellied sea eagle. In both these cases, the plans for development proceeded4 as these areas were assessed to be relatively low in plant biodiversity compared to other areas in Singapore, the birds could colonise and survive at other alternative sites, and that the development of infrastructure in these cases would lead to greater well-being for the nation. Beyond meeting its international obligations, the Singapore government now recognises the intrinsic value of conserving the natural biodiversity of this highly urbanised tropical island. A healthy ecosystem can enhance the overall liveability of a city. According to the Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC), a sustainable environment is one of three central outcomes that de ne a liveable city.5 Urban biodiversity is also increasingly recognised as an “x-factor” that can distinguish Singapore from other garden cities around the world. e National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) of 2009 noted: “ e tropical rainforests in the Central Catchment Nature Reserve protect our water catchment so that we can have clean water. Plants play important roles like cleaning our air through the capturing of carbon dioxide, lowering the ambient temperature by shading, and reducing soil erosion. Insects function as important pollinators so that we can enjoy fruits. Birds act as seed dispersal agents. Mangroves serve as nurseries for crabs, prawns, cockles, and many of our marine organisms. Coral reefs harbour several of our favourite seafood. e natural ecosystems found in Sungei Buloh, Bukit Timah, Pulau Ubin, etc., cater to our recreational, educational, and psychological needs.”6 e next few chapters explain the reasons for this gradual shi in public policy and perceptions towards nature conservation in Singapore, from the colonial era to the present day.
Endnotes
1 International Union for Conservation of Nature, About Biodiversity, last updated 17 January, 2013, accessed 1 August, 2013, http://www.iucn.org/what/biodiversity/about/. 2 Ibid. 3 Convention on Biological Diversity, Cities and Subnational Government, Launch of the Cities and Biodiversity Outlook, accessed 27 April, 2015, https://www.cbd.int/subnational/partners-and-initiatives/cbo. 4 In the Pasir Ris case, the green bu er was increased to about 4 metres to allow for a thicker screen of tree planting. 5 Centre for Liveable Cities and Civil Service College, Liveable & Sustainable Cities: A Framework (Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities, 2014). E-version available at http://www.clc.gov.sg/documents/books/CLC_ CSCLiveable&SustainableCities.pdf. 6 National Parks Board, Conserving our Biodiversity, Singapore’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2009, accessed 1 August, 2013, http://www.nparks.gov.sg/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view= article&id=70&Itemid=166.
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 7 17/6/15 9:39 AM 01-72_Bio_SL.indd 8 17/6/15 9:39 AM 3 Biodiversity Conservation in Pre-Independent Singapore
hen the British established a trading settlement in Singapore in 1819, much of the island Wwas covered in forest and vegetation. By 1848, the forest cover had been reduced to about 64 per cent of the total land area as forests were cleared for cultivation of cash crops such as gambier. at year, the governor, concerned about the e ects of wanton deforestation that included fears of Singapore’s climate changing, issued a prohibition against any further destruction of forest on the summit of hills.1 By 1882, a forest survey by N. Cantley found that only 11 per cent of Singapore’s land could be demarcated as forest reserves to protect the colony’s remaining habitats. In his report, Cantley further recommended that an agency be formed to protect, manage and oversee the forest reserves of Singapore.2 In 1884, a Forest Department was indeed formed within the Botanic Gardens. Despite these developments, conservation e orts were limited and most of the protected areas saw signi cant deterioration over the next few decades. Consequently, the colonial government revoked the status of most of the forest reserves in the 1930s due to their degraded condition. Only Bukit Timah Forest Reserve was retained “on grounds of amenity and botanical interest”.3 R.E. Holttum and E.J.H. Corner, then Director and Assistant Director of the Gardens respectively, pushed for the protection of more areas around Bukit Timah, Kranji and Pandan. ese were eventually re-gazetted as forest reserves in 1939. e onset of the Second World War saw the administration of the Gardens come under the control of the Japanese. H. Tanakadate and K. Koriba, successive Directors of the Gardens, also recognised the value of the forest reserves and ensured their protection during the war. Aer the war, the Directorship of the Botanic Gardens reverted to Holttum, who recommended that legislation be enacted to protect Singapore’s nature reserves. is led to the passing of the Nature Reserves Ordinance in 1951. It placed Bukit Timah Forest Reserve, Kranji Forest Reserve, Pandan Forest Reserve, Labrador Cli and the Municipal Water Catchment area under legal protection. Singapore inherited these as legally-protected reserves from the British when it gained independence in 1965.
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 9 17/6/15 9:39 AM 10 Biodiversity: Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore
Endnotes
1 Logan, J.R., “ e Probable E ects on the Climate of Pinang of the Continued Destruction of Hill Jungle”, Journal of Indian Archipelago and East Asia, 2 (1848): 534. 2 Cantley, N., “Report on the Forests of the Straits Settlements.” Paper to be laid before the Legislative Council by Command of His Excellency the Governor, 20, (1883). 3 Corlett, R.T., “Vegetation”, in Chia, L.S., Rahman, A. and Tay, D. (Eds.), e Biophysical Environment of Singapore (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1991), 141.
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 10 17/6/15 9:39 AM 4 e Early Approach to Biodiversity Conservation in Singapore
n the early years following independence, biodiversity conservation was generally regarded Ias impractical and of little value by the majority of Singaporeans and the new government. Attention and resources were focused on pressing issues such as political stability, housing, public health and industrial development. While the forest reserves enjoyed legal protection, their boundaries were occasionally adjusted, and some of the land designated for development use, until the 1990s. Despite the exigencies of national development, Singapore adopted an ambitious “Garden City” objective which placed emphasis on greening the country. is was virtually unique among newly independent developing countries, and was implemented decades before the prominence of the global environmental movement and climate change concerns made “green cities” fashionable. In practice, such “greening” oen meant the inclusion of trees, plants and green spaces within built areas such as housing estates and the commercial district, rather than the full preservation of natural habitats in their original state. Singapore simply could not a ord the luxury of the latter, due to major shortages of land for housing and development purposes. For instance, in the early 1960s, a majority of Singapore’s residents were squatters living in overcrowded conditions, and did not have their own homes. Fortunately, with the passage of time, these early greening e orts resulted in an infrastructural “green skeleton”, over which subsequent biodiversity conservation initiatives could be seamlessly layered.
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 11 17/6/15 9:39 AM 12 Biodiversity: Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore
4.1 THE GARDEN CITY (i) City Greening
In the 1960s, then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, observing that “only one tree was planted for every ten felled for building sites”,1 mooted the idea of greening the city to ensure that Singaporeans would have the best possible living environment in spite of industrialisation and urbanisation. ere was also an indirect economic motivation behind the Garden City — it would di erentiate Singapore from other ird World countries in the region to attract foreign investors and visitors. An attractive and well-kept city presupposed the existence of a committed and ecient government.
One arm of my strategy was to make Singapore into an oasis in Southeast Asia, for if we had First World standards then businessmen and tourists would make us a base for their business and tours of the region. e physical infrastructure was easier to improve than the rough and ready ways of the people.2 — Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s rst Prime Minister, on the rationale for the Garden City
EXHIBIT 4 Prime Minister and Member of Parliament for Tanjong Pagar Lee Kuan Yew planting a Yellow Flame tree at Tanjong Pagar Community Centre on tree planting day
Source: Ministry of Information and the Arts Collection, Courtesy of National Archives of Singapore
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 12 17/6/15 9:39 AM e Early Approach to Biodiversity Conservation in Singapore 13
Tree planting was an important part of the greening strategy, and then Prime Minister Lee planted the very rst tree himself in 1963. He asked for 10,000 trees to be planted a year, including 5,000 trees along places like new roads, housing estates and schools grounds. e public was also encouraged to join in the tree-planting e orts, and 1971 saw the introduction of National Tree Planting Day, an annual event which continues today. ese greening e orts soened the hard edges of a city increasingly dominated by built structures and high-rise buildings. Creepers were planted on retaining walls, overhead bridges, yovers and fences. Trees and owers were planted en masse in highly visible areas such as Changi Airport and the entire stretch of road leading from it, to give visitors a memorable rst image of Singapore. Hardy trees were planted where the landscape was barren due to poor soil conditions, for instance, the reclaimed land of Marina South at the southern end of the island. ese trees reduced the problem of dust, helped establish topsoil and provided a pleasant view for the high-rise oces in the Central Business District. Public housing estates also incorporated a tree-planting plan and park areas in their overall design. As Singapore continued to urbanise and grow, the government adhered to a park provision target of 0.8 hectares per 1,000 people, which the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) took into account in its master planning. In the 1990s, the Parks and Recreation Department (PRD; now part of NParks) implemented 23 park projects at an estimated cost of $71.8 million. ese parks were conceptualised to ful l di erent recreational and social needs. For instance, East Coast Park was a place for people to enjoy sun, sea and sand, while Labrador Park had a historical focus that highlighted the military heritage of the area.
(ii) Building up Expertise on Flora and Fauna
While then Prime Minister Lee paid personal attention to city greening, the government’s top priority remained the provision of housing and jobs for the people of Singapore. As such, funding for the parks was not always guaranteed, and when approved, was not always generous compared to funding for development projects. In spite of the emphasis on development, funds were allocated to bring more birdlife back to Singapore in the 1980s. With the help of ornithologist Chris J. Hails, this allowed a deeper understanding of how to attract birdlife to urban areas.3 In 1986, a bird habitat was created at East Coast Park — an early initiative to conserve Singapore’s natural ecosystem. In the early days, government agencies generally lacked horticultural expertise. is created an independent ethos among civil servants who worked on greening and the parks. Lacking resources and expertise, they learnt to work with many di erent stakeholders outside the government to achieve their goals. ey also gradually built up a pool of horticultural knowledge on what was feasible for Singapore through practical experience, learning through trial and error, and improvising as they went along. As with horticultural expertise, ocers also built up knowledge on Singapore’s ora and fauna and on biodiversity conservation. ese passionate civil servants and experts would prove critical
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 13 17/6/15 9:39 AM 14 Biodiversity: Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore
for Singapore in the 2000s, as biodiversity issues took on greater importance globally and at home.
4.2 EARLY GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS CHALLENGES AND EVOLUTION
While early attempts at city greening did not emphasise biodiversity conservation, the basic infrastructure and institutions involved in creating the Garden City vision would eventually contribute to the conservation of biodiversity as more attention was paid to protecting the city’s natural habitat in the 1990s.
(i) The Nature Reserves Board
e Nature Reserves Ordinance of 1951 provided for the establishment of a Board of Management, which had full power to administer nature reserves. In accordance with this, the Nature Reserves Board (NRB) was formed in the 1970s. Prior to the 1990s, the responsibility for protecting Singapore’s nature reserves fell on the shoulders of the members of NRB. e NRB consisted of trustees who were nominated by both the Minister for National Development and the President, and included the Commissioner of the Gardens, sta from the Public Utilities Board (PUB), PRD, and eventually, the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF). It also included members from academia and the private sector. Representatives from government agencies, such as the Public Works Department (PWD), were present primarily because part of the reserves was protected for water catchment, while MINDEF conducted some military training in nature reserves. NRB had very little power to stop other agencies from encroaching into nature reserves, and was viewed by some of its members as a “toothless” institution.4 Instead, the Garden City Action Committee (GCAC), which was set up by then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, received more attention from the government as it was focused on greening the urban environment to attract foreign investment and providing parks for the recreational needs of the population. Little regard was given to the mandate of NRB, which sought to safeguard the nature reserves for ecological, educational and research purposes. Over the years, NRB occasionally expressed frustration with the continual destruction of natural areas. is included clearing large tracts of land for the development of industrial infrastructure, as well as recreational amenities such as golf courses. NRB proposed the development of certain areas in ways that would preserve the natural habitats (such as a mangrove garden at Tanjong Karang). ese were considered by other agencies, but most did not come to fruition. is trend continued as natural habitats around the island slowly made way for expanding industry, transport networks, housing estates and infrastructure. e Pandan Forest Reserve and the Kranji Forest Reserve, both mangrove habitats, were degazetted in 1962 and 19735 to make way for Jurong
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 14 17/6/15 9:39 AM e Early Approach to Biodiversity Conservation in Singapore 15
Industrial Estate and the Kranji Sewage Treatment Works respectively. In the 1970s, part of the rocky shore around Labrador Cli , a gazetted area, was reclaimed. In response, NRB sought a fresh mandate from the Minister for National Development to protect these nature reserves in 1981. MND concurred with NRB that nature reserves should only be a ected by development if there were no feasible alternatives. Other government agencies were asked not to plan projects or propose alternative uses within nature reserve lands, unless encroachment was unavoidable for special reasons. Even in such instances, government authorities were to consult NRB prior to planning their projects. Despite the Ministerial-level endorsement, other government agencies continued to push for the use and development of land that was part of an existing nature reserve, and many on NRB were frustrated by such requests. Prof Leo Tan, a marine biologist and member of the Board, explained:
“In the 1980s I became one of the Trustees, a board member. What annoyed or upset me most was, here we were told that our mandate and terms of reference was to protect the natural environment. But on the other hand, every agency including SAFRA [Singapore Armed Forces Reservists Association], MINDEF [Ministry of Defence], PUB [Public Utilities Board] would come to us and say, ‘I want this.’ …We annexed a lot of nature reserves as a result, be it for a golf course or for the SAFRA club. Why were we being appointed, if our job was to supervise the demise of nature reserves?”6
At one point, the Board members almost resigned en masse. However, when Dr Tan Wee Kiat took over the post of Secretary from Dr Lee Sing Kong in 1983, he managed to persuade the members to stay on.7 By that time, NRB had achieved some success in slowing down granite quarrying within the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve, which had been threatened by development activities. In spite of support from the Minister for National Development at the time, Dr Tan sensed that the sentiment towards biodiversity conservation within the government was generally negative, for various reasons. “ e attitude towards conservation was guarded, bordering on hostile,” he said. “ e guarded part of it was partially due to the fact that the conservationists at that time, those in the then Malayan Nature Society, were primarily expatriates and not Singaporeans… e style of the Westerners may have bordered on exasperation and was also very confrontational.”8 NRB’s conservation e orts were thus minimal and low-key, as a result of inadequate funding, few institutional linkages to other public agencies in Singapore, and the government’s focus on developing the built environment. It existed until 1990, when the National Parks Act was passed in Parliament, forming the new National Parks Board (NParks) under MND through a merger of NRB and the Botanic Gardens Division of the PRD.9
(ii) Formation of the National Parks Board (NParks)
e idea of forming NParks evolved from a suggestion by Dr Tan Wee Kiat, then the Secretary of NRB. At that time, Dr Tan, who was concurrently the Assistant Commissioner of Parks under PRD,
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 15 17/6/15 9:39 AM 16 Biodiversity: Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore
oversaw the Singapore Botanic Gardens, which was then a division of PRD. He wanted the SBG to return to its original mission and looked for ways to develop it into an institution of horticultural and botanical excellence, and a place for recreation and active use, instead of simply being a source of horticultural supplies for Singapore’s greening e orts.10 To do so, he felt it was necessary for the Botanic Gardens to be a separate statutory board instead of being part of PRD, so that it would have more autonomy. e Permanent Secretary of National Development at that time was supportive of Dr Tan’s intentions and suggested that NRB could be the foundation for this new statutory board, which would also oversee Fort Canning Park as the Botanic Gardens were too small to require a dedicated agency. To this end, a National Parks Bill was introduced in Parliament in 1990. “We made use of the Nature Reserves Act and revised it in-house to form the basis for the National Parks Board,” explained Dr Tan. Various members of NRB such as Prof Leo Tan, Mr Ong Ho Sim of PUB, Mr Bernard Harrison, Lady Yuen Peng McNeice and Mr Richard Hale were supportive and lent their expertise to the e ort. In the months leading to the reading of the National Parks Bill, various public agencies continued to submit requests to develop nature reserve lands for various uses. For instance, PUB proposed the development of two golf courses, one at Lower Peirce Catchment and one at Mandai Road, and proposing that the forest within the Central Catchment be cleared. Dr Tan found himself under pressure from government ocials. “As Secretary, I was told to bring the [Nature Reserves] Board in line to say it was alright to cut the forest…to develop a golf course,” he recalled.11 NRB responded in March 1990 by establishing principles to avoid the fragmentation of Singapore’s nature reserves. ese included requiring that all development proposals on lands a ecting nature reserves be endorsed by the Board, as well as mitigating the loss of nature reserves land through compensatory allocation of alternative sites of the same area that are contiguous to the reserves. e Board also endorsed, in principle, the use of golf courses as bu ers to nature reserves, if they were located in areas which are not currently put to intensive use. NRB’s view was that golf courses should serve as bu ers and should not intrude in nature reserves as their development would result in the loss of the biological diversity of the natural forest. In this particular case, as the land requested for golf course development was fully vegetated and some of these areas [were] actually regenerating into high forest, the Board agreed that these areas should not be degazetted as golf courses. Eventually, of PUB’s two requests, only the proposal to clear the area near Mandai Road went ahead, and a 9-hole Executive Golf Course was built along the southeast bank of Upper Seletar Reservoir. e proposed golf course in the Lower Peirce area was never constructed. Following the establishment of NParks, it advised that PUB commission an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) on the area. e civil society group, Nature Society (Singapore) or NSS, also conducted an EIA. e two EIAs arrived at di erent conclusions on the golf course’s environmental impact. Subsequently, NSS launched a public media campaign to garner public support to halt the development, and collected 17,000 signatures. NSS did not have to use this petition eventually as URA had considered the internal government EIA, and decided to put the project on hold.12
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 16 17/6/15 9:39 AM e Early Approach to Biodiversity Conservation in Singapore 17
Debate on the National Parks Bill e Parliamentary debate on the National Parks Bill in March 1990 clari ed the government’s position on the development of nature reserves land. At the Second Reading of the Bill on 29 March 1990, then-Minister for National Development Mr S. Dhanabalan explained that the government was open to the use of nature reserve land for golf course development as a last resort, while acknowledging the resulting loss of biodiversity. Responding to a Member of Parliament, Mr Ng Pock Too, on this issue, Mr Dhanabalan said:
“We are, of course, constantly looking for areas that are not usable for other economic uses to be put to recreational use, such as golf. But we must realise that golf courses are no substitute for the intrinsic value that a natural stand of forest trees can provide. In developing a golf course, the established trees must of course be removed and we have to manicure the place with grass and the whole natural condition of the area has to be completely changed. It would be wrong to think that as long as we keep the area open for catchment purposes, it does not matter what kind of vegetation we have there. Having said that, we are looking at parts of the central catchment area which can be converted to golf courses, especially where we can justify the golf course as a bu er between the forest and the built-up areas. So to the extent that we can do this without a ecting the nature of the Nature Reserves, we will do so.”
e government’s attitude towards military training in nature reserves was similar to that of golf courses — that it was open to allowing restricted and managed use of the reserves. At the Second Reading of the National Parks Bill in Parliament, Mr Dhanabalan explained the government’s rationale:
“Members must concede that in land scarce Singapore, multiple land use is a national necessity. Certain activities have to be allowed in the Nature Reserves. is Bill, of course, will enable the Board to have the power to manage the Nature Reserves properly and to mitigate potential dangers posed by such activities and avoid irreversible negative impact on the Nature Reserves.”
Live ring exercises are still conducted within the Central Catchment Nature Reserve, but at NParks’ request, the Singapore Armed Forces has consolidated its activities within a smaller area of the reserve.
e National Parks Board e National Parks Act was passed on 29 March 1990. It repealed the Nature Reserves Act, and provided for “the formation of the National Parks Board to manage [the] national parks and Nature Reserves e ectively”. Nature reserves would be held in trust and managed by NParks, which would be allocated sta and nancial resources to enable it to properly conserve and manage the nature reserves. Previously, NRB had relied on PRD for administrative and technical support. e Chairman and members of NRB were appointed to the new NParks with Dr Tan Wee Kiat as the rst Executive Director.13
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 17 17/6/15 9:39 AM 18 Biodiversity: Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore
As a statutory board that was no longer part of a government department, the new NParks had greater autonomy. Being new, its organisational culture very much resembled a start-up: sta took risks to accomplish the organisation’s objectives, and new frontiers and initiatives were explored. NParks sought to increase the land area of existing reserves by regularising their boundaries and working with other agencies to modify infrastructural development, such as transport networks (like the Seletar Expressway), to avoid further fragmentation of the reserves.14 is culture has persisted even aer the merger of NParks and PRD in 1996 into a single statutory board to combine their accumulated expertise, creating the current incarnation of NParks. Today, NParks oversees the streetscape greenery of Singapore, manages its parks and nature reserves, promotes horticultural and botanical research, and is Singapore’s designated scienti c authority on nature conservation.
4.3 THE ROLE OF NON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS
Apart from government agencies, passionate individuals and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) also played a role in biodiversity conservation in the midst of an urbanising Singapore. e most prominent of these groups is the Nature Society (Singapore), or NSS, which was originally part of the Malayan Nature Society (MNS). e Singapore branch of MNS was formed in 1954 by a handful of mostly British civil servants.15 MNS-Singapore eventually separated from its parent organisation and was re-named the Nature Society (Singapore) in 1992. Ties between MNS-Singapore, SBG and NRB existed as early as 1967, when Mr Richard U. Gooding of MNS-Singapore wrote to Mr H.M. Burkill, Director of Botanic Gardens Singapore on 29 May 1967 to discuss the possible designation of a marine nature reserve. In 1979, MNS-Singapore submitted a proposal to NRB with suggestions on how to develop existing nature reserves for enjoyment by the public. It suggested building basic facilities and interpretative signage for the Central Catchment Area, which until then had been less developed than Bukit Timah Nature Reserve. In the latter half of the 1980s, MNS-Singapore’s membership increased as more locals became interested in the natural environment.
(i) The Conservation of Sungei Buloh (1989)
In the 1980s, MNS-Singapore successfully worked with the government to conserve the biodiversity of Sungei Buloh, an area which then comprised mangrove habitat and prawn ponds. In 1986, one of MNS-Singapore’s members, Mr Richard Hale, stumbled upon the area and found it rich in bird numbers and diversity.16 e area had been slated for development as an agro-technology park. MNS-Singapore rushed to document the bird species that could be found there and submitted a proposal to the government on how the area could be managed for its educational value, with a programme of guided walks and farm tours. ey also reached out to government ministers, and
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 18 17/6/15 9:39 AM e Early Approach to Biodiversity Conservation in Singapore 19
the Chairman of its Conservation Committee escorted the incumbent President, Mr Wee Kim Wee, Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, and Minister of National Development, Mr Dhanabalan, to the site. e e orts of MNS-Singapore resulted in Mr Dhanabalan’s decision to convert Sungei Buloh into a nature park in 1989. is decision was made largely because of a ministerial commitment to conserve the environment, and also because he felt that Singapore could “a ord” to leave Sungei Buloh undeveloped at that time:
“ e mindset of politicians inuences decisions. Unless the matter is so important that it requires the whole Cabinet to decide, normally it is the Minister who makes the decision. In the case of Sungei Buloh I do not remember going to Cabinet. I was committed to preserve the environment and I preserved it… ere are many things we want to do but cannot a ord to. But because of our commitment to conserve the environment, we stretched our argument of a ordability… So it was a conscious decision but we could make the conscious decision because of a series of fortuitous events which resulted in the place being preserved. We came to the conclusion that we had enough land and could a ord some of the things in the past we thought we will not be able to a ord.”17
Following the decision, PRD enlisted the services of Jurong Bird Park and the expertise of UK- based Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust and in 1993, the Sungei Buloh Nature Park was ocially opened by then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong.18 Encouraged by the government’s commitment to conserve Sungei Buloh, MNS-Singapore submitted its “Master Plan for the Conservation of Nature in Singapore” in 1990, which proposed that speci c areas with high biodiversity in Singapore be set aside for conservation.19 However, many of their proposals were not incorporated into subsequent development plans. One hurdle MNS-Singapore faced aer Sungei Buloh was that conservation issues were led by members who were not experienced in working with the government, and who lacked the relevant behind- the-scenes contacts.20 us, they oen employed a more confrontational approach, using the media to pressure the government into conserving areas which they had identi ed. Development work was halted in a few cases, such as PUB’s plan to construct a golf course at Lower Pierce Reservoir, but other projects, such as in Marina South and Senoko, proceeded as planned. is resulted in the straining of relationships between the government and nature conservation NGOs in the 1990s.
4.4 CONSOLIDATING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION EFFORTS
From the 1990s, the government’s conservation e orts were not limited to preserving nature reserves, as mandated by the law. Instead, it began to look at the bigger picture of biodiversity conservation.
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 19 17/6/15 9:39 AM 20 Biodiversity: Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore
(i) The Singapore Green Plan
In the early 1990s, with the upcoming United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (known as the Earth Summit) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the Ministry of the Environment (ENV) spearheaded the draing of the Singapore Green Plan. is would describe the government’s broad policy directions to realise “the vision of Singapore as a model Green City by the year 2000”.21 Various government agencies, including URA and NParks, were involved. e government also sought the views of public and private organisations.22 e plan, known as “SGP 1992”, was Singapore’s rst formal environmental blueprint. Cabinet gave its in-principle approval, and it was subsequently presented at the Earth Summit.23 Most of the issues addressed in the SGP 1992 were “brown” issues such as waste management, air quality, water quality and food safety. A small section addressed nature conservation, and aimed to set aside 5 per cent of Singapore’s land area aer reclamation or 3,000 hectares, whichever was smaller, for conservation.24 e Action Programmes arising from SGP 1992 listed nineteen sites as “Nature Areas”. MNS- Singapore was heavily consulted, as the nature enthusiasts knew these areas well. By mid-1993, URA had documented the land areas of the nineteen sites and mapped an additional four marine nature areas. ese were compiled into a set of Nature Conservation Area plans. Any proposed development falling within these 23 areas would require consultation with NParks. Between 1994 and 1996, NParks sta undertook exploratory surveys to assess the biodiversity status of these areas and to map them more accurately.25 is allowed NParks to identify areas which were worth further study, and propose levels of protection based on the habitat type and the richness of its biodiversity.26 NParks recommended for these sites to be incorporated into the new Development Guide Plans that URA was drawing up to form its 1998 Master Plan. While this did not materialise, the Nature Areas were ocially incorporated into one of URA’s Special and Detailed Controls Plan — the newly launched Parks and Waterbodies Plan — in 2002. is followed extensive discussion at the Working Committee on Nature Conservation chaired by the DCEO of NParks, Dr Leong Chee Chiew.27 Development proposals near these areas would have to go through an extensive consultation and approval process at the planning stage. is was a major step. It accorded greater recognition and status to biodiversity-rich areas that were not legally gazetted as nature reserves under the Parks and Trees Act.
(ii) Pulau Semakau
e development of Singapore’s o shore land ll for incinerated waste, Pulau Semakau, demonstrated the government’s commitment to mitigating the pressures of development on Singapore’s natural ecosystems. Government agencies worked with academics to identify innovative and novel solutions to preserve some of Pulau Semakau’s original biodiversity. In creating the land ll, ENV took into account varied interests. PRD managed the island and wanted to retain as much of its natural habitat as possible. e Port of Singapore Authority (PSA)
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 20 17/6/15 9:39 AM e Early Approach to Biodiversity Conservation in Singapore 21
at the time was concerned with navigational issues. “We all agreed that this project was special and had to be studied carefully and thoroughly, so we called for a detailed feasibility study that included an assessment of the environmental impact of the proposed project,” recalled ENV lead engineer Mr Eng Tiang Sing. “We told our consultants that they had to do a feasibility study that not only included the operation of the land ll, but also included all the environmental impacts and how we could mitigate them. at meant it had to take into consideration what existed in Pulau Semakau in terms of biodiversity, and what we could do to make sure that it was still pre s e r v e d .” 28 Feasibility studies were initiated in the early 1990s. In an attempt to retain as much of the natural mangroves as possible, the initial reclamation pro le le a small channel between Pulau Semakau and the enlarged Pulau Sakeng. However, experts determined that due to the resulting hydrodynamics of the channel, all the mangroves on the east side of Pulau Semakau would not survive the changes in the tidal system from the narrowing of the channel. us, the engineers settled on a 7-kilometre perimeter bund that would join the two islands together instead of leaving them apart. Although this would result in the destruction of a patch of mangroves on Pulau Semakau, ENV committed to replant, hectare-for-hectare, all 13.6 hectares of mangroves that would be lost as a result of the land ll.29 Construction of the o shore land ll began in 1995, and it was ocially opened on 1 April 1999.30 (See Box Story 1: Planting mangroves at Pulau Semakau.)
EXHIBIT 5 Aerial photographs of Pulau Semakau and Pulau Sakeng before and a er reclamation
Source: MINDEF (used with permission)
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 21 17/6/15 9:39 AM 22 Biodiversity: Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore BOX STORY 1
PLANTING MANGROVES AT PULAU SEMAKAU
When the then Ministry of the Environment (ENV) turned two o shore islands — Pulau Semakau and Pulau Sakeng — into an o shore land ll, it committed to replant 13.6 hectares of mangroves that would be lost in the process. The rst challenge ENV faced was the lack of expertise in planting mangroves on such a large scale, as this had never been done in Singapore before. Prof Lee Sing Kong (a Senior Lecturer at the School of Science at the National Institute of Education and a trained horticulturalist) and Prof Leo Tan (the concurrent Director of NIE and the Dean of the School of Science at NIE/NTU, and a veteran marine biologist) were eventually appointed as consultants to design the mangrove replanting areas. “The replanting of mangroves was a very unique feature. Nobody had ever done this kind of thing before and at such a big scale,” said Mr Eng Tiang Sing, then the lead engineer from ENV working on the project. “Can you imagine replanting 13 hectares of mangroves? Sing Kong and Leo Tan were also trying out some of the replanting methodologies for the rst time. So they did the best they could because nobody had done it before.” The mangrove planting went ahead in earnest, but all e orts almost came to nought when the mangrove saplings were threatened by two oil spills that occurred in 1996 and 1997. In particular, the Evoikos spill in 1997 released over 28,000 tons of oil into the sea to the south of Singapore, and posed the biggest threat to the saplings.31 “When we heard the news, the next morning we called each other and everybody was down at Semakau immediately. Sing Kong was there, Leo was there. We were almost in tears because of all the painstaking work that was put in and then you see all of these thick oil specks covering the poor little baby plants,” recalled Mr Eng.32 The entire team of engineers, experts, consultants and contractors considered a variety of options to salvage the saplings, including individually washing each leaf with detergent. Eventually, it was decided that there was nothing more that could be done to the mangrove saplings except to let nature take its course. Fortunately, the damage was contained to a few patches as most of the more mature saplings had grown above the high tide line, and more plants survived than anticipated. In fact, the mangrove plants grew so well that they ended up being too close to one another, compared to naturally growing mangroves. “I think now there are a lot of lessons that we can learn from there — for one, we may not want to plant them as densely as we did,” Mr Eng said. “We thought that out of nine, maybe one plant could survive. But I must say they were more resilient than we thought.” On Pulau Semakau, the government and academics worked well together to construct the land ll in a way that would conserve as much of the biodiversity as possible. In the course of their cooperation, the passion of the individuals who tried hard to salvage the mangroves rubbed o on those who were simply trying to meet Singapore’s solid waste management needs. Mr Eng declared, “I also became a botanist or whatever you want to call it. It was actually a very exciting project for me, personally, because I learnt a lot of new things from the experts and I also became quite passionate about biodiversity after all of this. Previously I was just an engineer, but after interacting with people who were so passionate in what they were doing, you also feel very inspired by them.”
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 22 17/6/15 9:39 AM e Early Approach to Biodiversity Conservation in Singapore 23
On the ups and downs of the Pulau Semakau experience, Mr Eng said, “With the available knowledge and resources, we came up with what we thought was the best solution at that time. We are talking about planning the best for the future 20 years ago. Of course, with the bene t of hindsight today, some people may ask why we could not have done more to make Semakau even more attractive. But I think it was already quite a feat to convince our leaders at that time to spend a large sum of the budget just to save the mangroves.”
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 23 17/6/15 9:39 AM 24 Biodiversity: Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore
Endnotes
1 “Plant a Tree Drive in Singapore”, e Straits Times, 12 June, 1963. 2 Lee, K.Y., From ird World to First: e Singapore Story 1965–2000: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew (Singapore: Times Media Private Limited, 2000), 199-200. 3 Wee, Y.C. and Hale, R., “ e Nature Society (Singapore) and the Struggle to Conserve Singapore’s Nature Areas”, Nature in Singapore 1 (2008): 41–49. 4 Tan Wee Kiat, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, 2 April, 2012. 5 Lim, S.S.L., Ng, P.K.L, Leo, W.H.T. and Yeow, C.W., Rhythm of the Sea: e Life and Times of Labrador Beach (Singapore: Division of Biology, School of Science, Nanyang Technological University and Department of Zoology, National University of Singapore, 1994); Wong, Y.K. and Alphonso, A.J., e Preservation of the Mangrove Area at Tanjong Karang (Singapore: NParks internal paper), puts the date when the Pandan Forest Reserve was degazetted at around 1959. 6 Leo Tan, interview by National Parks Board (NParks), Singapore, 19 April, 2011. 7 Ibid. 8 Tan Wee Kiat, interview by the Centre of Liveable Cities, Singapore, 2 April, 2012. 9 Singapore Parliament Reports (Hansard). (1996, May 21). National Parks Bill (Second Reading) Parliament No: 8, Session No: 2, Volume No: 66, Sitting No: 2. Retrieved from http://www.parliament.gov.sg/ publicationssingapore-parliament-reports. 10 Neo, B.S., Gwee, J. and Mak, C., “Growing a city in a garden”, in Gwee, J. (Ed.), Case Studies in Public Governance – Building Institutions in Singapore (Singapore: Routledge, 2012), 39. 11 Tan Wee Kiat, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, 2 April 2012. 12 Wee, Y.C. and Hale, R., “ e Nature Society (Singapore) and the Struggle to Conserve Singapore’s Nature Areas”, Nature in Singapore 1 (2008): 41–49; Francesch-Huidobro, M., Governance, Politics and the Environment: A Singapore Study (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008). 13 Singapore Parliament, Second Reading of the National Parks Bill, 29 March, 1990, accessed 22 April 2014, http://www.nparks.gov.sg/cms/index.php?option=com_news&task=view&id=11&__=. 14 Sharon Chan, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, 16 February 2012. 15 Wee, Y.C. and Hale, R., “ e Nature Society (Singapore) and the Struggle to Conserve Singapore’s Nature Areas”, Nature in Singapore 1 (2008): 41–49; Nature Society, History and Accomplishments, accessed 25 July, 2011, http://www.nss.org.sg/about. aspx?id=2. 16 Wee, Y.C. and Hale, R., “ e Nature Society (Singapore) and the Struggle to Conserve Singapore’s Nature Areas”, Nature in Singapore 1 (2008): 41–49. 17 Interview with Dhanabalan, S., in Francesch-Huidobro, M., Governance, Politics and the Environment: A Singapore Study (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008), 178–182. 18 Wee, Y.C. and Hale, R., “ e Nature Society (Singapore) and the Struggle to Conserve Singapore’s Nature Areas”, Nature in Singapore 1 (2008): 41–49; Ministry of National Development, O cial Opening of Sungei Buloh Nature Park, Press Release issued by Parks & Recreation Department, Singapore, 6 December, 1993. 19 Avadhani, P.N., Wee, Y.C., Chou, L.M., Bri ett, C., Hale, R., Ho, H. C., Lim, K., Lim, K.K. and Subaraj, R., Master Plan for the Conservation of Nature in Singapore (Singapore: Malayan Nature Society (Singapore Branch), October, 1990). 20 Wee, Y.C. and Hale, R., “ e Nature Society (Singapore) and the Struggle to Conserve Singapore’s Nature Areas”, Nature in Singapore 1 (2008): 41–49.
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 24 17/6/15 9:39 AM e Early Approach to Biodiversity Conservation in Singapore 25
21 Leong, C.C., Chan, L., Tay, S., Phoon-Cohen, P., Khoo, H.W., See, T.C.F., Chew, S., Hale, R., Chou, L.M., Chan Jr., W., Lee, P., Heah, M.E.S. and Waller, E., Singapore Green Plan: Recommendations by the Nature Conservation Review Committee (Singapore: 2000). 22 Ministry of the Environment, e Singapore Green Plan: Towards a Model Green City (Singapore: Ministry of the Environment, 1992). 23 Ibid.; Leong, C.C., Chan, L., Tay, S., Phoon-Cohen, P., Khoo, H.W., See, T.C.F., Chew, S., Hale, R., Chou, L.M., Chan Jr., W., Lee, P., Heah, M.E.S. and Waller, E., Singapore Green Plan: Recommendations by the Nature Conservation Review Committee (Singapore: 2000). 24 Ministry of the Environment, e Singapore Green Plan: Towards a Model Green City (Singapore, Ministry of the Environment: 1992). 25 Teo, S. and Chew, P.T., Biodiversity Status Report of the Nature Conservation Areas of Singapore, 1994–96 (Singapore: National Parks Board, 1996). 26 Ibid. 27 Urban Redevelopment Authority, URA Launches Key Ideas for Enhancing Parks and Waterbodies to Improve Quality of Living Environment, accessed 1 February 2013, http://www.ura.gov.sg/pr/text/pr02-40.html. 28 Eng Tiang Sing, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, 20 January, 2012. 29 Tan, Y.S., Lee, T.J. and Tan, K., Clean, Green and Blue: Singapore’s Journey Towards Environmental and Water Sustainability (Singapore: ISEAS Publishing, 2009), 108. 30 Ibid. 31 Ng, P.K.L. and N. Sivasothi (Eds.), A Guide to the Mangroves of Singapore I: e Ecosystem and Plant Diversity (Singapore: Singapore Science Centre, 1999), 160; Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore, Factsheet on MOU on Oil Spill Resources, 24 September, 2007. 32 Eng Tiang Sing, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, 2 April, 2012.
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 25 17/6/15 9:39 AM 01-72_Bio_SL.indd 26 17/6/15 9:39 AM 5 A New Era of Conservation
he year 2000 ushered in a new era for conservation in Singapore. Relationships between Tconservation NGOs and the government were improving. As Minister for National Develop- ment, Mr Mah Bow Tan was generally sympathetic to conservation e orts, while NGOs such as NSS adopted a more collaborative and less confrontational approach under the leadership of experienced individuals such as Dr Geh Min.1 In addition, global trends were shiing towards sustainable development, o ering more opportunities for conservationists and the government to work together, notably on Chek Jawa and the Labrador Nature Reserve. For the rst time since Singapore’s independence, the number and area of nature reserves in Singapore increased.
5.1 CHEK JAWA AND MARINE CONSERVATION
In April 2001, as part of URA’s urban planning process, Mr Mah unveiled the Dra Concept Plan 2001 to the public. is was followed by a public exhibition, where URA gathered feedback. At this point, attention turned to an area of rich biodiversity located on the eastern end of Pulau Ubin — Tanjong Chek Jawa. e area had long been slated for reclamation for military use, aer Parliament’s approval was given in 1992. In December 2000, during a nature walk at low tide, botanist Mr Joseph Lai discovered that Chek Jawa contained a relatively large number of coastal and marine habitats within a small area, and that it was potentially rich in biodiversity. With the reclamation of Chek Jawa set to begin soon in December 2001, nature enthusiasts voiced their concerns to MND at the public feedback forum for the Dra Concept Plan. Public interest in Chek Jawa grew. Dr Geh Min, then President of NSS, wrote a letter to then Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, Mr Abdullah Tarmugi, which was carried in the media. Academic institutions such as the Ra es Museum of Biodiversity Research mobilised
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 27 17/6/15 9:39 AM 28 Biodiversity: Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore
volunteers to salvage and sample as much of the area as possible, before reclamation works began. As media attention increased, a growing number of people became interested in visiting Chek Jawa. Volunteer guides conducted tours, and an estimated 900 people went on low tide walks over those few months. On 18 October 2001, Mr Mah, together with ocials from MND, URA, HDB and NParks, also visited the site. e discovery of Chek Jawa’s rich biodiversity led the government to reconsider reclamation. While URA and NParks worked on a communications plan to update the public, URA and HDB looked into alternative reclamation pro les, and consulted NParks and MINDEF on whether modi cations could be made to protect the newly discovered biodiversity, while retaining sucient land for military training. e HDB had previously commissioned an Environmental Impact Statement that was carried out by the Tropical Marine Science Institute (based at the National University of Singapore). However, the study focused only on the impact of the reclamation on dugongs and coral reefs, but not the impact on the mangroves and intertidal habitats. Eventually, Mr Mah decided that the reclamation work could be put o as the land was not needed in the immediate future. In a press release on 14 January 2002, MND announced its decision:
e Ministry of National Development (MND) has decided to put o the land reclamation works at Pulau Ubin for as long as the island is not required for development. is will allow Chek Jawa to be retained in its natural state. e rustic nature of Pulau Ubin will be preserved for as long as possible.2
EXHIBIT 6 Fieldwork at Chek Jawa
Source: Ria Tan, www.wildsingapore.com
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 28 17/6/15 9:39 AM A New Era of Conservation 29
While the long-term planning intention for Pulau Ubin remains as stated in the Concept Plan 2001, the decision to defer the reclamation for as long as possible was a signi cant boost to conservation e orts in Singapore, and was applauded by many academics and NGOs. e successful conservation of Chek Jawa was the product of several factors: broad-based public support, the constructive relationship between NSS and government agencies, and the willingness of developer agencies to work together with NParks. is outcome “came as a wonderful surprise”, according to Dr Geh. “I feel that NParks and Nature Society worked very well together because of our relationship that was based on trust. Nature Society pushed where it helped to push, but we did not do it at the expense of NParks,” she said. “Rather we saw NGOs’ role as complementary rather than confrontational.” Dr Geh added, “the really important thing was that the public supported it, and other groups started up spontaneously to support it. Everyone contributed their best e ort to saving Chek Jawa which is why it has become such an icon of Singapore’s national identity”3. Following these events, NParks was tasked in November 2001 with the responsibility for marine biodiversity conservation and thus, the management of Chek Jawa. With that, NParks’ mandate was extended beyond its traditional terrestrial focus, to include the intertidal and marine area.
5.2 THE GAZETTING OF NEW NATURE RESERVES
Where land availability poses constraints, it is inevitable that the inclusion of any new nature reserves would have to be justi ed with a strong scienti c rationale. NParks submitted its request for more nature reserves in 2001 in line with the science-based policy to legally protect at least one site of each ecosystem found in Singapore. In January 2002, MND announced that Labrador Nature Reserve (see Box Story 2: Conserving Labrador Shore) and Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve, both containing coastal and intertidal habitats that were as yet to be legally protected, would be designated as Nature Reserves under the Parks and Trees Act and would come under the management of NParks.
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 29 17/6/15 9:39 AM 30 Biodiversity: Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore BOX STORY 2
CONSERVING LABRADOR SHORE
So I got the media to do stories about it, and we said it’s the only natural rocky shore left on the mainland, because we had lost Tuas, we had lost Sembawang, we had lost every other natural rocky shore. — Prof Leo Tan, recalling the campaign to save Labrador Shore At the point of Singapore’s independence, “Labrador Cli ” at the southern edge of the island was protected by the colonial-era Nature Reserves Ordinance of 1951. It had previously been a British sea defence fort, but had fallen into disuse after World War II. Its coastal cli , rocky shore and beach (also known as Pasir Panjang Beach) were deemed appropriate for protection due to the population of a rare fern, Dipteris conjugata, on the vegetated cli slope. However, part of the shore was reclaimed in the early 1970s and converted to a park in the late 1970s. It was subsequently left out of the National Parks Board Act enacted in 1990, which gazetted the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve and Central Catchment Nature Reserve. The Labrador area was not included as a protected reserve due to the loss of the thriving population of the Dipteris conjugata fern, as well as NParks’ initial focus on terrestrial sites. In the 1970s, plans were made to reclaim the whole stretch of what remained of the rocky shore and beach, and to convert it into a port. In the 1980s, Prof Leo Tan, then the Director and CEO of the Singapore Science Centre, campaigned with members of the zoology department at the National University of Singapore and PRD to preserve Labrador. However, the PSA Board and MND had other competing objectives. Prof Tan recalled, “MND said, ‘Can we build a port? Every year we can make 50 million dollars. If we leave it open like that, it’s just a waste of space. Unutilised, and [with] dirty- looking rocks.’”4 At one point, the campaigners had already considered the beach lost, and e orts were made to document as much of the marine and coastal biodiversity as possible before the reclamation. A book on Labrador Beach, titled Rhythm of the Sea, was published in anticipation of its impending reclamation. A reprieve came when Commodore James Leo was appointed to the post of Executive Director of the PSA Board in June 1991. He was sympathetic to the cause of those who had been campaigning for Labrador and thus granted a stay of reclamation for 10 years. “The rst PSA Board was of the opinion that it was a waste to not put the area to better use. We were told, ‘Don’t waste time keeping it’. But when James Leo came on board, he said, ‘Good idea’ and we took steps to increase the public’s awareness,” said Prof Tan. “It was the last rocky shore with coral abutting the main island. And therefore it was historical heritage, and could be used for education, for research, and new species were still being found there, so why not keep it?” Since Labrador was the only remaining rocky shore and coastal forest habitat accessible to the public on Singapore’s mainland, Mr Mah Bow Tan, then Minister for National Development, decided that Labrador Shore, together with Sungei Buloh, would be gazetted as two new nature reserves in 2002. Today, the Dipteris conjugata fern is once again thriving in the nature reserve.
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 30 17/6/15 9:39 AM A New Era of Conservation 31
5.3 BIODIVERSITY SURVEYS
Biodiversity conservation e orts from the late 1990s onwards have been greatly strengthened by several major surveys. ese initiatives provided valuable information on various terrestrial, coastal and marine sites, and enabled a more systematic, science-driven approach to conservation management and the assessment of development proposals. Prior to 2000, funds and manpower for the surveying of Singapore’s biodiversity were dicult to come by. When NParks was formed, less than ten ocers managed the two existing nature reserves. However, biological surveys were needed to discover and record what was within the Bukit Timah and Central Catchment Nature Reserves. Dr Tan Wee Kiat enlisted the assistance of Lady Yuen Peng McNeice, then patron of SBG and the Loke Cheng-Kim Foundation, who made a substantial nancial contribution, allowing the unit to hire additional people to carry out the tasks required.5 NParks also approached interested individuals from academia and NGOs to help in the survey. is eventually took place from 1992 to 1997, and was the rst survey of our nature reserves initiated and partially funded by the government. It gathered information on vegetation distribution and various groups of fauna such as birds, freshwater sh, prawns and crabs, butteries, mammals, reptiles and amphibians.6
“Soon a er joining the National Parks Board in 1990 with much excitement and enthusiasm, one of my key roles was to coordinate the newly commissioned Nature Reserves Survey. It was a rst attempt to map out vegetation types and streams, and to systematically document the ora and fauna of the Bukit Timah and Central Catchment Nature Reserves. As a young o cer, I faced a steep learning curve and had to leverage on the combined expertise of naturalists, university researchers and other NParks sta to get the survey started. Other o cers took over the helm as survey coordinator along the way and this ambitious endeavour eventually took about six years to complete.” — Robert Teo, on the rst coordinated survey by NParks of Singapore’s Nature Reserves
Prior to the 2000s, surveys of the coastal and marine environment were carried out mainly by a small number of academics. Aer the discovery of Chek Jawa’s rich biodiversity, MND tasked NParks to conduct a rapid survey of natural areas in Singapore that were outside the nature reserves. e survey would alert the government to areas similar to Chek Jawa, and provide a basis for further study of promising sites. is survey was conducted from July 2003 to July 2004 and headed by NParks. It identi ed 29 terrestrial sites that were high in biodiversity, and the ndings formed the basis of a list of sensitive biodiversity sites that would gradually include coastal and marine sites, including those on the o shore islands.
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 31 17/6/15 9:39 AM 32 Biodiversity: Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore
However, the information collected was insucient for the purposes of strategic planning, evaluating development proposals and planning for conservation management.7 A more thorough inventory was needed. As a follow up to the survey, NParks identi ed information gaps, and focused more attention on intertidal and marine habitats. Over the course of the next survey that ran from 2006 to 2008, the team surveyed 20 mangrove sites, eight marine sites and four terrestrial sites. is was the rst major survey of Singapore’s coastal and marine habitats by the government, and it successfully identi ed more biodiversity-rich sites. e second major survey of Singapore’s coastal and marine habitats arose from a synchronisation in ideas from three parties. NBC had identi ed a comprehensive survey of marine habitats as a logical step forward to the previous surveys that had been done; NUS had proposed the need to survey the Straits of Johor; and the Singapore Blue Plan 2009 also suggested a similar marine survey. e last was a submission by NGOs and interested individuals to the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Sustainable Development in June 2009, following the International Year of the Reef in 2008. It contained a proposal for the integrated and balanced conservation of Singapore’s marine heritage.8 One recommendation was to establish a comprehensive intertidal and coral reef biodiversity survey, which would produce data that would be made publicly available. e convergence of these like-minded proposals resulted in the commencement of the Comprehensive Marine Biodiversity Survey (CMBS) in 2010, which will last until 2015.9 One goal was to involve as many members of the public as possible. NParks worked with NGOs and civil society leaders on recruiting volunteers, and hired a project manager to train them. To date, approximately 400 volunteers have been trained and recruited to take part in the survey. Private partners such as Asia Paci c Breweries (S) Pte Ltd, Shell Companies in Singapore, the HSBC Care-For-Nature Trust Fund and the Air Liquide Group also provided sponsorship through the Garden City fund.10 It is the rst stock-take of Singapore’s coastal and marine habitats to be done at such a large scale, with substantial contributions by the private sector and major involvement of members of the public. To enable the design of management plans for all nature reserves and major ecosystems under NParks’ management in Singapore, a survey of the two new nature reserves (Labrador and Sungei Buloh) and Pulau Ubin was undertaken. Existing data on these sites was either focused on certain ora and fauna (such as migratory birds at Sungei Buloh), or too ad-hoc in nature for meaningful comparison between sites. Survey methods are standardised as far as possible across all sites, to yield similar and comparable data. Appendix A contains a summary of large-scale biodiversity surveys. Besides these e orts, NParks ocers carry out monitoring e orts and surveys at a smaller scale alongside their daily work.11
5.4 INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENTS
In the 2000s, growing environmental sensitivity and awareness of nature conservation worldwide helped to shape public interest as well as government perceptions about biodiversity in Singapore. Apart from its intrinsic value, policymakers realised that a sound record of environmental protection
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 32 17/6/15 9:39 AM A New Era of Conservation 33
could lend depth and credibility to Singapore’s positions at bilateral and multilateral negotiations, and when working with international organisations. Several key episodes reinforced this.
(i) Dispute with Malaysia over Land Reclamation Activities by Singapore
In 2002, land reclamation activities by Singapore on Pulau Tekong, an island northeast of mainland Singapore, attracted complaints from neighbouring Malaysia. Malaysia alleged that the works were causing “irreversible damage to the marine environment”,12 and applied to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) for various provisional measures, including the suspension of reclamation works pending the outcome of the arbitration. Fortunately, Singapore’s growing e orts on biodiversity conservation since the 1990s provided the data necessary to defend its case in the international arena. In preparing its response, Singapore produced evidence that its development activities took into consideration the impact on biodiversity and the environment. With the relevant data, Singapore was able to refute the claim that its reclamation works had destroyed biodiversity in Malaysia.
“Singapore’s counter argument was that if we could look a er our own biodiversity within our waters, then what we are doing is not aecting Malaysia’s waters. Because we had the data to show that this was the case, we had a stronger argument to say, ‘I am not destroying your biodiversity because mine is still good and it is within our waters.”13 — Dr Lena Chan, recounting how biodiversity data provided the supporting evidence necessary in the ITLOS case
In the end, the Tribunal ruled that Singapore did not have to stop its land reclamation activities and that both countries should convene a group of experts to study the situation and propose any modi cations that needed to be made to the works, if necessary.14 is experience highlighted the value of good planning, anticipation of potential impacts and early design of mitigation measures. It prompted the development of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process that suited Singapore’s context, and existing internal administrative procedures were strengthened. Today, all development proposals are comprehensively assessed by various agencies as part of Singapore’s urban planning process, and EIAs are required for major development proposals near sensitive areas such as Nature Reserves, nature areas and coastal and marine areas. As Dr Lena Chan of NParks recalled, “ e reclamation disagreement caused the government to pay more attention to the EIA process.”15
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 33 17/6/15 9:39 AM 34 Biodiversity: Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore
“ e environmental impact assessment process has developed tremendously over the past decade. Screening and scoping have become more uniform and thorough; reports have become more investigative and rigorous; and evaluation and approval have become more structured and formalised. e system is now far from the ad-hoc approach that some imagine as the only possibility under an administrative rather than a legislated process.”
— Dr Georey Davison, Deputy Director (Terrestrial Branch), reecting on the development of the impact assessment process over the past decade
(ii) US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement
In the early 2000s, the United States and Singapore began negotiations on a bilateral Free Trade Agreement (FTA). In line with the growing prominence of environmental components in FTAs, the United States needed the agreement to contain language on environmental protection. NParks was called upon to assist in the negotiations. Recounting how the Singapore-US FTA negotiations had highlighted the importance of biodiversity protection, Dr Leong Chee Chiew said,
“I think FTAs were quite crucial because it came to the level of importance where, if you don’t show me an environmental record, it could even be a deal breaker. And then I think they really appreciated that suddenly, NParks could give them supporting evidence to say that we’ve got a programme and we’re serious about it. But you can’t invent these things overnight and you can’t blu the international community, so in a real way, there was some solid work done even when the call was not made for such work to be done. en I give credit to the team for having persevered and believed, even when it wasn’t recognised or appreciated, until they were faced with some real situations in which they needed the body of work.”16
Singapore’s environmental and conservation e orts had been of value to this major FTA negotiation. NParks’ e orts over time demonstrated that Singapore observed biodiversity conservation practices. Furthermore, because Singapore had taken the implementation of the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) seriously, it was in a position to point out to the United States that it was not a signatory of the CBD, which put both countries on a more level negotiating ground. e FTA was signed in May 2003 and entered into force in January 2004. From this point, within the ministries that had traditionally paid little attention to environmental issues, there was an increased awareness that taking biodiversity conservation seriously and establishing a good track record could strengthen our negotiating position in other sectors such as trade, maritime navigation and trans-boundary disputes.
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 34 17/6/15 9:39 AM A New Era of Conservation 35
(iii) The World Economic Forum Environmental Sustainability Index Report
In 2000, the World Economic Forum (WEF) published a pilot report on an index on environmental sustainability at its annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland. is Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) had been initiated by the WEF Global Leaders for Tomorrow Environment Task Force, and compiled by the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy in collaboration with Columbia University’s Center for International Earth Science Information Network. Singapore was ranked as one of the top ten worst countries for environmental sustainability and was highlighted as having scored far lower than expected in the “Environmental Stress” component of the report. e report noted that “the Singapore anomaly” was probably because, as a city-state, it had “a qualitatively di erent environmental context than other economies”, and acknowledged that future versions of the ESI would need e ective ways to “capture the idiosyncrasies of environmental circumstances that diverge markedly from the norm.”17 e ESI was subsequently modi ed, and has been replaced by the more comprehensive Environmental Performance Index (EPI), which ranked Singapore as a “modest performer” in 52nd place in 2012, and subsequently 4th out of 178 countries in 2014.18 e release of the original ESI highlighted a glaring vacuum. Despite the rapid pace of urbanisation globally, and the important role that cities could play in improving environmental sustainability, there was no reliable and comprehensive indicator for biodiversity in urban environments. is presented an opportunity for Singapore to make a contribution.
(iv) The Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity
Singapore rati ed the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1995, but did not participate extensively in this or other international biodiversity fora until the mid-2000s.19 e question was how Singapore, a small city with limited land for biodiversity conservation, could contribute meaningfully to the CBD. Singapore’s strengths lay in the area of biodiversity conservation within an urban setting. Hence, it developed a biodiversity index for cities, which has since been renamed the Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity (SI). Cities can use the SI as a self-assessment tool to monitor their progress in biodiversity conservation e orts over time (see Box Story 3: e development of the Singapore Index). As of 2015, 51 cities worldwide have applied or are currently in the process of applying the SI through their city governments or academics, and approximately 40 more cities have indicated some interest to use the Index. e User’s Manual has been translated into German, French, Japanese, Chinese, ai and Vietnamese, and has precipitated an increase in networking activities among stakeholders within each city, and globally, on the issue of biodiversity.
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 35 17/6/15 9:39 AM 36 Biodiversity: Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore
e SI positioned Singapore as a global thought leader in the eld of urban biodiversity conservation, and allowed Singapore to share its urban conservation model with the world. e government was undeterred by Singapore’s small size, and recognised the potential to make a useful contribution in niche areas. By 2015, the SI had achieved a level of acceptance beyond anyone’s expectations.
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 36 17/6/15 9:39 AM A New Era of Conservation 37 BOX STORY 3
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SINGAPORE INDEX
Following the release of the ESI, NParks identi ed several gaps in the index and had begun thinking of how to improve on it. In October 2007, Peter Head from ARUP20 was invited to visit Singapore to speak at MND’s inaugural lecture series, entitled “Sustainable Development and Competitiveness of Cities.21 Mr Ng Lang, then CEO of NParks, attended the lecture and approached Head thereafter. “I was talking to him and the idea of an index for biodiversity and cities surfaced, and he thought it was a good idea,” recalled Mr Ng. “Lena [Chan] was also part of the conversation.”22 Dr Chan suggested that the CBD would be an appropriate platform to develop this index. Not only was it a United Nations convention addressing biodiversity conservation, but a network of cities had earlier adopted the Curitiba Declaration on Cities and Biodiversity in March 2007 under the auspices of the CBD. At the suggestion of Ambassador-at-large Tommy Koh, Singapore invited the Executive Secretary of the CBD, Dr Ahmed Djoghlaf, to attend a regional biodiversity workshop in January 2008 in Singapore. Mr Ng recalled that Dr Djoghlaf had been “totally impressed” with what Singapore had done, and suggested that Singapore present its urban biodiversity conservation model at the CBD’s 9th Conference of the Parties (COP 9) later that year in May 2008. “He felt that because half of humanity was already living in cities, if you want to talk about arresting biodiversity decline — which is CBD’s mission — you have to start with the cities.”23 Dr Djoghlaf lent his support to the idea of an index for urban biodiversity. Following this, NParks approached the Minister for National Development, Mr Mah Bow Tan. “When we proposed the idea to Minister Mah, he was very gung-ho. He went to attend the Conference of Parties in Bonn [COP 9] in May 2008 and oated the idea,” recalled Mr Ng. Mr Mah subsequently attended COP 10 in October 2010 to support the endorsement of the Cities’ Biodiversity Index which he had proposed two years earlier. Since then, a user’s manual has been produced to guide cities in the application of the SI.24 The Index comprises two parts — rst, a “city pro le” that gives background information on the city and second, a set of 23 indicators. These indicators measure three broad aspects related to biodiversity — native biodiversity in the city, ecosystem services provided by biodiversity, and governance and management of biodiversity. Examples of speci c indicators include the “proportion of natural areas in the city”, “change in number of native species”, and “regulation of quantity of water”. The rst application of the index by a city will establish a baseline for each indicator. Subsequent applications are recommended at three-year intervals to allow su cient time for any changes to be captured in the index. Thus, the SI allows cities to monitor the e ects of their biodiversity conservation e orts and track any improvements or setbacks in their programmes.
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 37 17/6/15 9:39 AM 38 Biodiversity: Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore
us, in the 2000s, Singapore’s attention to biodiversity conservation increased in terms of the level and scope of e orts, both locally and on the international stage. Support from the political leadership was key to this achievement. Dr Lena Chan described Mr Mah as having been “an extremely good champion for biodiversity conservation”. She added, “From Chek Jawa to the nature reserves, to the international scene and the role we play in the CBD and the development of the Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity, he provided strong leadership all along. He has been really very, very supportive.”25
5.5 NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY CENTRE
With the impetus provided by the ITLOS reclamation case and US-FTA negotiations, NParks established the National Biodiversity Centre (NBC) in 2006 to better manage its growing responsibilities in the area of nature conservation, function as a central coordinating centre for biodiversity-related issues in government and mainstream biodiversity issues within the government as a whole. Its predecessor, the Nature Conservation Branch, was formed in the mid-1990s aer Singapore rati ed the CBD. Since NBC’s formation, it has built capabilities in biodiversity conservation strategy, scienti c research and monitoring, environmental assessment, science-based policy formulation, international relations, as well as technical support, outreach and education. In 2009, NBC mapped out Singapore’s master plan for biodiversity conservation in Singapore’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP). e NBSAP lays down the guiding principles for biodiversity conservation in Singapore. NBC initiates and implements biodiversity surveys, and recently expanded the development of additional island-wide monitoring programmes for mangroves and intertidal areas, on top of existing coral and seagrass monitoring programmes. e data gathered is made available in the Centre’s biodiversity and environment database, BIOME. e Centre also spearheads research collaboration projects with local institutions of higher learning and environmental consulting rms. ese projects gather data for management purposes, experiment with new methods of habitat and species rehabilitation, and investigate the application of new technologies to the work of biodiversity conservation. ese e orts are sometimes coordinated through inter-agency committees such as the Technical Committee on the Coastal and Marine Environment (TCCME), to ensure the broadest bene ts to multiple government agencies. e Centre also evaluates the impact of proposed development projects, via a government- wide Environmental Impact Assessment process. is involves assessing the ecosystems at potential development sites, and the e ects of development on both national and global biodiversity. Last but not least, NBC represents Singapore at various biodiversity-related fora, including at the UN and ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations), provides technical support on biodiversity issues for international negotiations, and continues to contribute signi cantly to the implementation of the SI aer its development.
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 38 17/6/15 9:39 AM A New Era of Conservation 39
5.6 A NEW ERA OF BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
With the growing importance of biodiversity conservation, NParks has evolved since the mid-2000s, to be more e ective in managing biodiversity issues in Singapore.
(i) Conservation in a Heavily Urbanised Environment
e traditional approach to conservation involved setting aside large swathes of land as wildlife reserves. en CEO of NParks Mr Ng Lang believed that a di erent approach had to be developed for a heavily urbanised environment such as Singapore’s. He explained:
I think the business of biodiversity conservation is quite di erent between what you do in a high density city like ours, and what you do in a country with a huge land mass. In a country with a huge land mass you can take defensive action, protect a piece of land and just let it thrive. But here, we are a city with very little land and frankly it’s a very arti cial construct. […] If you want to be that kind of city where you are high density and yet have nature and biodiversity, then you really have to develop a very di erent kind of approach and science to make it happen. ese things don’t happen without the proper approach to nurture and management… e science, I’m convinced, is quite di erent.26
With the increasing amount of data collected from surveys and the inclusion of biodiversity considerations in parks and streetscapes, opportunities arose for a di erent approach to be used for conservation in Singapore, that would involve collaboration with the private sector and resourcefulness in the face of limited land area. For instance, using more native plants in parks and streetscape planting would increase biodiversity, but NParks encountered an obstacle when doing so. NParks sta who developed parks were constrained by what nurseries could o er in terms of plant and tree species. Due to the deadlines for park development and construction, sta would simply choose from the species that nurseries had in stock. At the same time, nurseries were only stocking up on plants that NParks had purchased in the past. Mr Ng saw that this cycle in the supply chain needed to be broken in order to create a supply of native plant species. “It cannot be that when I build parks, I look at what the nurseries have and then I just have no choice but to plant what they have. en the nursery will always see you buying only these few types of plants, so to play safe they only stock up on those few types of plants.”27 To diversify its sources of trees, NParks began collaborating with the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) to use vacant state land as “tree banks” to establish its own source of trees. In addition, to reach out to the landscaping industry, NParks set up a small garden to show how native plants could be used in parks and gardens. As more native plants were incorporated in parks and streetscapes, the nurseries took the cue, and began stocking up on these species. Mr Ng was also convinced of the need to better explain the science behind conservation to the public. Technical knowledge had to be conveyed in language that was easily understood by non- scientists, to persuade them of the importance and bene ts of conservation. To this end, public
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 39 17/6/15 9:39 AM 40 Biodiversity: Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore
education and outreach e orts have improved collaboration with NGOs and interested individuals, and raised awareness of conservation issues in Singapore. In 2011, the Community in Nature initiative was launched to “connect, educate and inspire diverse communities to actively conserve and celebrate Singapore’s natural heritage.”28 In 2012, NUS and NParks organised the rst Biodiversity Roundtable. It provided a platform for stakeholders in the natural history community and government to share conservation updates, exchange ideas and raise issues for discussion.29 e following year, the Festival of Biodiversity was held at the Vivocity shopping mall to reach a wider audience.30 Several new initiatives have sought to marry ecology and biodiversity conservation within Singapore’s urban environment. e Centre for Urban Greenery and Ecology (CUGE) was set up in December 2007 in conjunction with the Workforce Development Authority to share and advance expertise on urban greenery and ecology, especially in relation to the landscape industry workforce. While the majority of CUGE training courses are geared towards the landscape and horticultural industries, there is some focus on biodiversity-related topics such as biodiversity impact assessments and creating dragony habitats in the parks. Some courses are taught by NParks ocers with strong technical expertise. Another initiative was the Buttery Garden in HortPark in June 2009, in collaboration with buttery enthusiast Mr Khew Sin Khoon and members of the ButteryCircle.31 is was another successful collaboration between government and civil society enthusiasts to implement biodiversity-related projects.
(ii) Biodiversity in a ‘City in a Garden’
In 2010, NParks embarked on a public communications and engagement plan to re-brand Singapore as a ‘City in a Garden’ (CIAG). e ‘City in a Garden’ vision built upon Singapore’s existing reputation of being a ‘Garden City’, which focused on greening of roads and providing parks for recreation. e ‘City in a Garden’ vision took this one step further, by aiming to create a seamless interconnected matrix of parks, gardens and greenery within which the urban environment would be nestled. While there were a handful of public references to a ‘City in a Garden’ since 2006,32 the concept fell largely in the shadow of the ‘Garden City’ brand, especially in the public eye. In August 2011, NParks, under the leadership of then CEO, Mr Poon Hong-Yuen, introduced a new CIAG framework to clarify what was needed to realise the vision:33 1. Engage and inspire communities to co-create a greener Singapore; 2. Enhance competencies of our landscape and horticulture industry; 3. Enrich biodiversity in our urban environment; 4. Establish world-class gardens; 5. Optimise urban spaces for greenery and recreation; and 6. Rejuvenate urban parks and enliven streetscape. Biodiversity is a key component in the new CIAG framework, but the focus went beyond conservation in the traditional sense. NParks conducted island-wide road shows and surveys to seek the views of residents, and nd out which animals residents would like to see more of in their
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 40 17/6/15 9:39 AM A New Era of Conservation 41
neighbourhoods. Underlying this move was the belief that urban living in Singapore could be enriched by having close encounters with nature. Furthermore, the healthy biodiversity in Singapore’s urban landscape was a di erentiating factor that would set Singapore apart from many other cities worldwide that had also embarked on greening programmes.
“Our rich biodiversity is an advantage that we should use responsibly to create a distinctive City in a Garden and endearing home. Over the years, we have progressively added on layers to our work in conserving and enhancing biodiversity. Not many major cities have done what we are attempting to do, so we still have many things to learn and new methods to try. ere will be challenges and even setbacks along the way, but I believe our approach of trying, observing, learning and trying again will continue to serve us well.” — Poon Hong Yuen, on the direction of NParks’ biodiversity conservation eorts within Singapore’s urban context
Some initiatives to reintroduce agship species included the Singapore Hornbill Project which began in 2004, which aims to reintroduce the Oriental Pied Hornbill to Singapore through breeding and subsequent release of birds,34 the creation of a dragony pond at Labrador Park, which utilised the natural hydrology of the area, and a rey introduction programme at Pasir Ris Park. e latter was conducted hand-in-hand with mangrove replanting, as the rey species required certain species of mangroves as host plants to survive.
EXHIBIT 7 e Oriental Pied Hornbill spotted in Kranji. Once presumed extinct, their numbers have been on the rebound with the Singapore Hornbill Project.
Source: Brian Evans, https://www.ickr.com/photos/beegee49/8124222369/, CC by-ND 2.0
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 41 17/6/15 9:39 AM 42 Biodiversity: Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore
Apart from directly reintroducing native species, ecological connectivity was promoted to broaden the e ective area for conservation. In early 2005, focus group members involved in the Singapore Green Plan 2012 recommended that a link to reestablish ecological connectivity between the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve (BTNR) and the Central Catchment Nature Reserve (CCNR) be built.35 e two nature reserves had rst been separated by the construction of the Bukit Timah Expressway (BKE) in the 1980s. Working together, NParks, LTA (the Land Transport Authority), URA, non-governmental organisations and tertiary institutions assessed the feasibility of such a link and cooperated to secure the funding, approvals and expertise required. In July 2011, six years aer the idea was rst mooted, and twenty- ve years aer the BKE rst fragmented BTNR from CCNR, construction works for Eco- Link@BKE began.36 By October 2013, construction was completed and stakeholders gathered to plant the rst 50 native trees on the link.37
EXHIBIT 8 e EcoLink@BKE
Source: Khew Sin Khoon
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 42 17/6/15 9:39 AM A New Era of Conservation 43
Based on the concept of wildlife corridors, ‘Nature Ways’ were also created to provide animals with conduits to travel between patches of nature throughout Singapore. e streetscape was planted more densely along these roads, with biodiversity-friendly plants and trees. In the case of Kheam Hock Road, surrounding residents and schools participated to “plant up” the streetscape and their own gardens to create the Kheam Hock Nature Way, which will link Bukit Timah Nature Reserve and the Singapore Botanic Gardens.
“Community in Action for Kheam Hock is special because it showcases how the three key components of CIAG can work together: pervasive greenery, rich biodiversity and community involvement. For the rst time, NParks, Nature Society-Singapore, volunteers and an entire community are coming together to grow bird- and buttery-attracting plants to green up the neighbourhood. In doing so, they help create a nature way, which encourages the movement of birds and butteries from one green space to another, that is, from a nature reserve to the Singapore Botanic Gardens.”38 — Poon Hong Yuen, on the Kheam Hock project
To ensure the sustainability of this initiative, NParks worked with the nearby Singapore Chinese Girls’ School to set up a nursery within the school, to grow plants for sale to Kheam Hock residents. “ e long-term aim is for the Kheam Hock community to take ownership of their living environment and bring beautiful biodiversity to their doorstep,” explained Mr Poon at the launch of the Kheam Hock Nature Way project in February 2013. “Many have already come forward to pledge their support, and have told us that they are excited by the prospect of more birds and butteries in their m i d s t .” 39 e same approach can be taken for the other three nature ways in Admiralty, Tampines and Yishun.40 ese initiatives serve as engagement and educational opportunities for the public. NParks has also developed a series of park connectors that aim to increase people’s access to nature within the city. While developed initially for public recreational needs, the Park Connector Network (PCN) now has the potential to serve as additional ecological corridors for wildlife. NParks has also collaborated with agencies such as PUB in their Active, Beautiful, Clean (ABC) Waters Programme to naturalise concrete canals into rivers with landscaped banks, and to integrate these features with parks.41 Such initiatives improve both biodiversity and the attractiveness and liveability of the surrounding environment.
(iii) A Marine Park For All
On 12 July 2014, news broke that Singapore would establish its rst Marine Park as a platform for outreach, education, conservation and research of Singapore’s native marine biodiversity. e park will cover about 40 hectares around Sisters’ Islands and the western reefs of St John’s Island and Pulau
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 43 17/6/15 9:39 AM 44 Biodiversity: Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore
Tekukor. 42 NParks had submitted multiple proposals for a marine nature reserve over the years, but these did not come to fruition until recently. In more recent years, and in the spirit of compromise, discussions between NParks, MND and other stakeholder agencies URA, Sentosa Development Corporation (SDC), Singapore Tourism Board (STB) and the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) resulted in greater support for the establishment of a marine park on Singapore’s southern islands. e location of the park was determined by sound science, current uses, and future plans for the islands. Results from an earlier research project showed that the Sisters’ Islands were a good source of coral larva for other local reefs. ey had also been designated a nature area in URA’s Parks and Waterbodies plan, and were already being used for recreation. Furthermore, the islands were relatively close to mainland Singapore, and future plans for the area were compatible with a marine park. NParks seeks to develop the Sisters’ Islands Marine Park (SIMP) into an exemplary marine park based on sound science that conserves Singapore’s thriving marine ecosystems and inspires community stewardship through outreach and education. Activities such as guided intertidal walks have begun, with NGO stakeholders as guides, and further plans are underway to develop a public outreach and education centre as well as more public programmes. Access to other areas will be restricted for research purposes. e establishment of a marine park is the next major commitment of the Singapore government to marine conservation since the reclamation of Chek Jawa was postponed.
(iv) Managing Human-Wildlife Coexistence in the City
As Singapore continues to develop and biodiversity is enhanced in urban landscapes, interactions between humans and wildlife will inevitably intensify. Many people are not used to living in close proximity to wildlife. In collaboration with agencies such as the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) which issues public advisories on encounters with wild animals, NParks has an important public education mission. Partnerships with NGOs and schools to increase awareness have begun, but these outreach e orts will take time to bear fruit. As the number of animals in Singapore’s parks increases, the interactions between park users and wildlife have also intensi ed. Park managers are improving their management of wildlife and human-wildlife interactions in areas under their charge. To address this need, NParks sta members with experience in handling wildlife such as macaques and snakes share their knowledge on identify- ing and interacting with these creatures safely. Such sessions could become part of a park ocer’s “on-the-job training”. In 2014, a new branch — Wildlife Management Research — was formed under NBC to conduct research on the ecology and populations of key species such as wild boars and macaques, which will ultimately lead to better management of their interactions with humans. Buildings and infrastructure can also be better designed, especially for developments around nature reserves where human-wildlife interactions have been occurring. “When they build things that are next to a reserve, they must know that animals will come in, so your design has to cater for that, and how to discourage them from coming indoors, because not everyone is comfortable with animals,” Ms Sharon Chan explained.43 At the same time, potential buyers should also be aware that if
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 44 17/6/15 9:39 AM A New Era of Conservation 45
they choose to stay near nature reserves and naturally forested areas, they must co-exist with wildlife. To this end, the government needs to engage private sector players such as architects, developers, consultants and contractors to create more “biodiversity-friendly” building designs, and to paint a more accurate picture of what living in such locations would entail.
Endnotes
1 Wee, Y.C. and Hale, R., “ e Nature Society (Singapore) and the Struggle to Conserve Singapore’s Nature Areas”, Nature in Singapore 1 (2008): 41–49; Sharon Chan, interview with the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, 16 February, 2012. 2 Ministry of National Development Press Release, Deferment of Reclamation Works at Pulau Ubin, Singapore, 14 January, 2002. 3 Geh Min, interview by the Centre for Liveable Cities Singapore, 14 March, 2012. 4 Leo Tan, interview with the National Parks Board, Singapore, 19 April, 2011. 5 Tan Wee Kiat, interview with the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, April 2, 2012; Tan, W.K., “Preface”, in Chan, L. and Corlett, R.T. (Eds.), Biodiversity in the Nature Reserves of Singapore (Singapore: National Parks Board, 1997). 6 Chan, L. and Corlett, R.T. (Eds.), Biodiversity in the Nature Reserves of Singapore (Singapore: National Parks Board, 1997). 7 National Parks Board, Natural Areas Survey Project Final Report. 2008. Singapore: NParks Internal Document. 8 Nature Society (Singapore), e Singapore Blue Plan 2009: A Proposal by Civil Society for Integrated and Balanced Conservation of Singapore’s Marine Heritage, accessed 1 August, 2013, http://www.nss.org.sg/old/ pdf/blueplan- nal.pdf. 9 National Parks Board Press Release, Comprehensive Marine Biodiversity Survey of Singapore, Singapore, 7 December, 2010. 10 National Parks Board Press Release, Singapore’s Biggest Scale Marine Biodiversity Expedition Uncovers New Records and Rediscoveries for Singapore, 23 October, 2012. 11 ese site-speci c surveys were carried out in NParks-managed areas on an ad-hoc basis and were usually quite focused. For instance, surveys were conducted on freshwater sh and crabs in the Nee Soon Swamp forest in the Central Catchment Nature Reserve, on large fauna in the Bukit Timah Nature Reserve and the Central Catchment Nature Reserve, and on migratory birds at Sungei Buloh Wetlands Reserve. For the coastal and marine environment, volunteers have been engaged to monitor seagrass habitats regularly since 2007 as part of TeamSeagrass. Coral reef habitats have also been monitored, again with the help of civil society volunteers, since 2005. Surveys and eld checks carried out for the rapid assessment of biodiversity in proposed development projects also contribute to the biodiversity database. Many groups also concentrate on speci c taxonomic groups such as vertebrates, birds, butteries, dragonies, spiders, grasshoppers, ladybirds, sponges, and sea anemones. 12 Ministry of Foreign A airs, Malaysia, 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the Dispute Concerning Land Reclamation Activities by Singapore Impinging Upon Malaysia’s Rights in and around the Straits of Johor Inclusive of the Areas around Point 20, Malaysia v. Singapore, Request for Provisional Measures (2003).
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 45 17/6/15 9:39 AM 46 Biodiversity: Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore
13 Lena Chan, interview with the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, 20 January, 2012. 14 International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Case Concerning Land Reclamation by Singapore in and Around the Straits of Johor (Malaysia v. Singapore) (Germany: Hamburg, 2003). 15 Lena Chan, interview with the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, 20 January, 2012. 16 Leong Chee Chiew, interview with the National Parks Board, Singapore, 19 May, 2011. 17 World Economic Forum, Pilot Environmental Sustainability Index: An Initiative of the Global Leaders for Tomorrow Environment Task Force, World Economic Forum. Annual Meeting 2000, Davos, Switzerland (New Haven: Yale Centre for Environmental Law and Policy, 2000). Available online at: http://sedac.ciesin. columbia.edu/es/esi/ESI_00.pdf. 18 Emerson, J.W., Hsu, A., Levy, M.A., de Sherbinin, A., Mara, V., Esty, D.C., and Jaiteh, M., 2012 Environmental Performance Index and Pilot Trend Environmental Performance Index (New Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Yale University, 2012), accessed 23 April, 2014, http://epi.yale.edu/ les/2012_ epi_report.pdf; Environmental Performance Index, Country Rankings (New Haven: Yale University, 2015), accessed 23 April, 2014, http://www.epi.yale.edu/epi/country-rankings. 19 Leong Chee Chiew, interview with the National Parks Board, Singapore, 19 May, 2011. 20 An international independent rm of designers, planners, engineers, consultants and technical specialists that o er a broad range of professional services related to the built environment. 21 “Singapore Urged to be More Ambitious in Developing into a Sustainable City”, Channel News Asia, 8 October, 2007. 22 Ng Lang, interview with the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, 15 March, 2013. 23 Ibid. 24 Chan, L., Hillel, O., Elmqvist, T., Werner, P., Holman, N., Mader, A. and Calcaterra, E., User’s Manual on the Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity (also known as the City Biodiversity Index) (Singapore: National Parks Board, 2014). 25 Lena Chan, interview with the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, 20 January, 2012. 26 Ng Lang, interview with the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, 15 March, 2013. 27 Ibid. 28 National Parks Board, Community in Nature Initiative, accessed 1 April, 2015, https://www.nparks.gov.sg/ biodiversity/community-in-nature-initiative. 29 National Parks Board, NParks Annual Report 2012/2013 (Singapore: National Parks Board, 2013), 20. Available online here: https://www.nparks.gov.sg/about-us/annual-reports/nparks-annual-report-archives. 30 National Parks Board, Festival of Biodiversity – Education and Outreach, accessed 1 April 2015, https://www. nparks.gov.sg/biodiversity/community-in-nature-initiative/festival-of-biodiversity. 31 e ButteryCircle is a local community of buttery enthusiasts who use online tools such as forums (http://www.butterycircle.com) and blogs (http://butterycircle.blogspot.sg) that are owned and managed by Mr Khew Sin Khoon to organise themselves and share information on butteries in Singapore and the region. 32 Urban Redevlopment Authority Press Release, Creating a “City in a garden”, 6 March, 2006; Ministry of National Development, “Singapore: City in a Garden, Celebrating a Century and a Half of Botanical Success” MND Link, May–June 2009; Ng, L., A City in a Garden, Ethos World Cities Summit Issue (Singapore: Civil Service College of Singapore, June 2008). 33 National Parks Board, Our City in a Garden, accessed 1 August, 2013, http://www.nparks.gov.sg/ciag/. 34 Wong, T.W., “ e Singapore Hornbill Project: A Great but Simple Idea”, e Raes Bulletin of Zoology
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 46 17/6/15 9:39 AM A New Era of Conservation 47
Supplement No. 24 (2011): 3–4. 35 Tan Chuan-Jin, (Speech presented at) Eco-Link@BKE Groundbreaking Ceremony, Singapore, 30 July, 2011. Available online at: https://www.nparks.gov.sg/news/2011/7/speech-by-bg-ns-tan-chuanjin-minister-of-state- for-nationaldevelopment-and-manpower-at--ecolinkbke-groundbreaking-ceremony-on-30-july-2011-at-935- am-ecolinksite. 36 National Parks Board Press Release, Construction Starts for Southeast Asia’s First Ecological Corridor. Eco-Link@BKE to Link Two Nature Reserves Across the Expressway, 30 July, 2011. 37 National Parks Board Press Release, Close Partnership Between Government Agencies and the Community Turns Eco-Link@BKE from Vision to Reality, 5 October, 2013. 38 Poon Hong Yuen, (Speech presented at) Commemorating 50 Years of Greening Singapore: Community in Action for Kheam Hock, Singapore, 2 February, 2013. 39 Ibid. 40 “Four New Nature Ways to Link Green Spaces in Singapore”, e Straits Times, 3 February, 2013. 41 Public Utilities Board, ABC Waters Programme, accessed 15 March 2015, http://www.pub.gov.sg/abcwaters/ Pages/default.aspx. 42 National Parks Board Press Release, Singapore to Establish First Marine Park, 12 July, 2014. 43 Sharon Chan, interview with the Centre of Liveable Cities, Singapore, 16 February, 2012.
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 47 17/6/15 9:39 AM 01-72_Bio_SL.indd 48 17/6/15 9:39 AM 6 Future Challenges and Directions
sustainable and liveable city is the aspiration of governments and city dwellers everywhere. Cities A worldwide have begun to appreciate the importance of biodiversity in this equation. Singapore has successfully housed its population, developed its industries and transport networks, improved its built infrastructure and given its citizens a green environment, while still retaining substantial biodiversity. Consequently, it has been identi ed as a relatively biophilic city by a small but growing network of city governments and academics due to these physical aspects.1 “Biophilia” is the “innately emotional aliation of human beings to other living organisms” that is hereditary and part of ultimate human nature.2 us, biophilic cities not only look to development of industry, housing, transport and cleanliness to contribute to its citizens’ quality of life, but also recognise the role of biodiversity in its inhabitants’ physical, psychological and spiritual well-being.3 Because of that, these cities also seek to inculcate an ethos of biophilia into its governance and citizenry, helping its population reconnect with nature in the midst of a modern and urbanised environment. For Singapore to work towards this aspiration, biodiversity and habitats need to be retained, enhanced and restored in the midst of further urbanisation. Current NParks CEO Mr Kenneth Er thus seeks to consolidate relevant biodiversity work done across NParks, increase research, apply scienti c know-how and techniques, and engage other government agencies, community groups, the private sector and the general public more proactively.
“As we get more urbanised now, we really need to have the science. e situation is becoming more complex and we’re not talking about simply saving this or that patch anymore. We are talking about how do we save this patch and make sure it persists. We are talking about overcoming obstructions between patches, as the whole landscape has changed and is still changing very fast. So unless we can start to apply the science, the old method of simply saving patches is not going to help us.” — Kenneth Er, NParks’ current CEO on the need for building up and applying scienti c knowledge for the purposes of biodiversity conservation in an urban context
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 49 17/6/15 9:39 AM 50 Biodiversity: Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore
6.1 A Comprehensive Master Plan for Nature Conservation
To consolidate Singapore’s conservation e orts and implement the NBSAP, a Nature Conservation Master Plan (NCMP) was unveiled in mid-2015. Broadly, the NCMP comprises a physical plan, a programmatic plan, a research plan and a community stewardship plan:
Physical Plan Programmatic Plan a. Core areas a. Habitat enhancement framework b. Bu ers b. Species recovery framework c. Ecological connections c. Management of human-wildlife interaction d. Soening of urban landscape into green matrix
Research Plan Community Stewardship Plan a. Comprehensive ecological surveys a. Community in Nature b. Long-term monitoring b. Biodiversity education into school curricula c. Utilisation of up-to-date tools (modelling, DNA technology, GIS) d. Science-based policy formulation and management planning
(i) A Matrix for Ecological Connectivity
Beyond the nature ways and PCN, broader areas can be made more conducive for animals to move through. is can further increase ecological connectivity between the core areas of biodiversity in Singapore, such as the Nature Reserves.
“What needs to be done is to so en the entire landscape matrix between our core areas of biodiversity. Whatever urban areas we have between those core areas, we have to nd ways to so en it. And the good thing is that a lot of these areas are lled with streetscape greenery along roads and within residential estates. So the idea of so ening the landscape matrix is not a di cult one to achieve, because it’s basically our greening programme.” — Kenneth Er, on utilising streetscape to create a matrix for ecological connectivity
Since 2014, the intensity and complexity of streetscape planting has increased, especially in areas between biodiversity cores. NParks has begun to work more closely with agencies such as HDB, LTA, PUB and JTC, playing the role of landscape masterplanners to better integrate ecological planting schemes into public infrastructure.
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 50 17/6/15 9:39 AM Future Challenges and Directions 51
(ii) Integration and Use of Technology in Research, Planning and Management
e emergence and improvement of new technologies presents opportunities for biodiversity research and management in Singapore. ese technologies can better measure and monitor what is happening in our environment and allow for ner and more accurate collection of data, which could lead to the discovery of new species. For example, the comprehensive resurvey of Bukit Timah Nature Reserve (BTNR) which began in early 20154 will utilise new technology and systems to better understand the conservation status and distribution of plants and animals in the reserve. Comparing the ongoing survey with the rst survey that took place nearly 20 years ago, Mr Robert Teo of NParks explains, “New technology like camera trapping, global positioning systems, advanced acoustic systems, LED lights and digital photography will enable more ecient and productive surveys. Many more cryptic species can be expected to be discovered living in the forests.” Analytical tools such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) allow scientists and managers to map and visualise distribution patterns of biodiversity in our urban landscape, and others such as agent-based modelling and DNA technology can help to determine and predict seed dispersion on land and genetic connectivity of organisms in our coastal and marine areas.
“ ere’s value in the science that we pursue… it can yield a lot of very important results that can have wide-ranging implications on the way we plan our city and on the way we undertake conservation planning. We want to do planning, not re- ghting. And you can’t do conservation planning unless you know the science and unless you start to pursue the advancement in modelling tools.” — Kenneth Er, on the need for keeping up-to-date with technological advancements and tools for conservation science and planning
ese research tools and applied systems can bene t all conservation e orts, from long-term monitoring plans and species recovery and habitat enhancement frameworks, to citizen science initiatives. is in turn can facilitate the adaptive management of biodiversity in Singapore’s urban context.
(iii) Citizen Science — Towards Community Ownership and Stewardship
NParks has long engaged a wide range of non-governmental stakeholders through citizen science initiatives. To take this e ort further, many new programmes under the Community in Nature initiative
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 51 17/6/15 9:39 AM 52 Biodiversity: Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore
have been launched, and more are in the pipeline. ese aim to promote community stewardship of biodiversity and involve more people in biodiversity data collection.
“ ese citizen science programmes are important bridges to reach out to our community and engage more people in NParks’ eorts to manage, conserve and strengthen biodiversity in Singapore… Community stewardship and participation in such programmes are crucial for Singapore to sustain our vision of a City in a Garden.”
— Minister-of-State for National Development, Desmond Lee, on the importance of involving the community in conserving Singapore’s biodiversity.
In 2014, Minister-of-State (MOS) for National Development, Desmond Lee, announced that Pulau Ubin would be kept rustic and natural to allow future generations to enjoy its rich biodiversity, history and heritage. A major initiative was thus launched to actively engage members of the public and various interest groups to sensitively enhance and protect the island’s heritage and rustic charm. MOS Lee led a series of wide-ranging public discussions and brainstorming workshops through the Friends of Ubin Network (FUN), which consists of NGOs, academics, villagers, students, government agencies and volunteers as stakeholders. e launch of an online microsite hosted by the Ministry of National Development in May 2014 widened the door to receive additional ideas from the public.5 e openness of discussion and degree of engagement with such a diverse group of passionate and enthusiastic people has set a benchmark for public engagement. On 16 April 2015, a biannual NParks Garden Bird Count was launched, in conjunction with a new biodiversity monitoring app, SGBioAtlas, which people can use to record and share biodiversity sightings.6 Volunteers for the bird count are required to undergo training in the identi cation of common bird species and proper counting methods, and data collected will be used by NParks for analysis. Over 400 volunteers were trained for this inaugural count. e SGBioAtlas app features bird, dragony, amphibian and buttery guides that can be downloaded for reference. Guides for other taxonomic groups will be added in later phases. With these initiatives, a wider spectrum of society can be engaged in multiple ways to be stewards of Singapore’s biodiversity.
Endnotes
1 A video by Professor Peter Newman of Curtin University, Western Australia, on how Singapore quali es as a biophilic city can be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMWOu9xIM_k, accessed 1 April 2015. 2 Kellert, S.R. and Wilson, E.O. (Eds.), e Biophilia Hypothesis (Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1993), 31. 3 Biophilic Cities, What are Biophilic Cities?, accessed 15 March, 2015, http://biophiliccities.org/.
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 52 17/6/15 9:39 AM Future Challenges and Directions 53
4 National Parks Board Press Release, NParks to Start New Comprehensive Survey of BTNR, 14 February, 2015. 5 Desmond Lee, COS 2014 – Speech by MOS Desmond Lee “Working Together to Build a Liveable and Green Singapore”, 10 March, 2014. Available online at: http://app.mnd.gov.sg/Newsroom/NewsPage. aspx?ID=5259&category=Parliamentary%20Speech&year=2014&RA1=&RA2=&RA3=. 6 National Parks Board Press Release, NParks Announces National Citizen Science Programmes to Encourage Stewardship of Biodiversity and Participation in Biodiversity Monitoring, 16 April, 2015.
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 53 17/6/15 9:39 AM 01-72_Bio_SL.indd 54 17/6/15 9:39 AM 7 Biodiversity Conservation — Planning and Governance Lessons
ingapore’s nature conservation journey has yielded not just technical and scienti c knowledge, but Salso insights on the role of institutions, integrated long-term planning, urban governance and public involvement in enhancing biodiversity. (Refer to Appendix C for the CLC Liveability Framework.) Sound institutions with a culture of integrity have been key to Singapore’s growing achievements in this area. Agencies like NParks must constantly develop new capabilities while deepening existing areas of expertise, to keep up with Singapore’s changing circumstances and developments in biodiversity conservation science. e formation and expansion of new centres such as NBC and CUGE, and a readiness to use new technologies and systems, enabled NParks to focus on emergent priorities, to respond to ever-changing environments and to manage new responsibilities arising from our international commitments such as the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, and growing public interest in biodiversity conservation. Institutions beyond the government, such as NSS and several blue groups, similarly played larger roles as their engagement styles adapted to suit and developed with the governance context in Singapore. eir ability to mobilise volunteers has added value to major biodiversity initiatives such as the conservation of Chek Jawa, EcoLink@BKE and the development of our o shore marine park. What is more signi cant is the strong sense of purpose and principles that led NParks ocers (and their predecessors in PRD and NRB) to do rigorous work within their limited means, at an earlier point in Singapore’s history when such work was relatively unnoticed and unappreciated by many. Like public health or social development, nature conservation is a long-term goal that cannot be achieved overnight. Early e orts in nature conservation paved the way for more ambitious biodiversity initiatives when the circumstances were ripe, and bore fruit in unexpected areas such as FTA negotiations, bilateral relations and contributions to international fora. Passion and enthusiasm are balanced with pragmatism through a process of integrated long- term planning that establishes sound compromises between the needs of development and nature
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 55 17/6/15 9:39 AM 56 Biodiversity: Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore
conservation, which sometimes diverge. From then-PM Lee Kuan Yew’s long-term vision of a Garden City, to the decisions made in the construction of Pulau Semakau land ll and the Bukit Timah Expressway, Singapore makes conservation choices in the context of high population density and scarce land. ese choices require close consultations and coordination among agencies. Biodiversity conservation was challenging in the 1980s when NRB faced repeated demands for development of nature reserves land, in the absence of clear processes and criteria to assess them. e establishment of an internal EIA process, the designation of nature areas in URA’s Parks and Waterbodies Plan, and the gazetting of new nature reserves in 2002 provided a more systematic context for inter-agency discussions. Productive disagreements between agencies are useful to resolve the inevitable trade-o s, as seen from the successful outcomes in Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve, Labrador Nature Reserve and the Sisters’ Islands Marine Park. Collaboration must extend beyond the government, as seen from NParks’ extensive outreach and engagement with international organisations, NGOs, schools and the community at large. ese led to fruitful contributions such as the NBSAP, Singapore Blue Plan, private sector sponsorship and involvement in conservation projects, research collaborations with academic institutions, and a growing public recognition that biodiversity can improve the liveability of our urban environment.
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 56 17/6/15 9:39 AM 8 Conclusion
ingapore’s e orts at environmental protection and biodiversity conservation have evolved con- Ssiderably in scope and emphasis over the decades, but one constant factor is the need to operate within the context of its unique land constraints and densely populated urban environment. How, then, should Singapore’s success in biodiversity conservation be measured? Its government is keenly aware of the need for balance. Singapore’s urban population increasingly cares about biodiversity and environmental issues, but it also places great emphasis on a ordable housing, healthcare, social and recreational amenities, transportation infrastructure and economic growth. On a short-term basis, the costs and bene ts of developmental decisions made today will a ect us. But future generations will judge us on these decisions, which will a ect the range and exibility of options available to them tomorrow. Together with its predecessor agencies, NParks has guided Singapore’s conservation e orts from the nascent stages of the “greening” of the built environment, to a growing awareness of the importance of preserving biodiversity, and the bold and multi-faceted vision of a City in a Garden. With these networks of expertise, Singapore has made signi cant international contributions to the concept of urban biodiversity, and how cities’ e orts to protect and enhance their ecological richness can be measured over time. Can cities of the future enhance their liveability through pursuing a new brand of conservation involving urban biodiversity? Singapore will have to nd its answer to this question, as it experiments with the complex task of conserving natural habitats, and enhancing, rehabilitating and restoring biodiversity in an urbanised environment. When the inevitable tensions arise between urban development and the protection of natural areas, all stakeholders must come together with a sensible, long-term mindset, build on the foundations painstakingly established over decades, and seek innovative solutions. Just as economic growth provides material progress, nature plays a signi cant role in enhancing physical, psychological and spiritual well-being. Despite its high population density, Singapore can seek to be ecologically connected both terrestrially and aquatically — a green matrix on land, a network of streams, canals and reservoirs, and the surrounding blue marine waters — a unique, liveable, biodiverse and biophilic city......
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 57 17/6/15 9:39 AM 01-72_Bio_SL.indd 58 17/6/15 9:39 AM References
INTERVIEWS:
Lena Chan, interview with the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, 20 January, 2012. Sharon Chan, interview with the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, 16 February, 2012. Eng Tiang Sing, interview with the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, 2 April, 2012. Kenneth Er, interview with the National Parks Board, Singapore, 9 April, 2015. Geh Min, interview with the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, 14 March, 2012. Ho Hua Chew, interview with the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, 13 April, 2012. Khew Sin Khoon, interview with the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, 10 April, 2013. Leong Chee Chiew, interview with the National Parks Board, Singapore, 19 May, 2011. Ng Lang, interview with the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, 15 March, 2013. Sim Cheng Hai, interview with the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, 20 March, 2012. Leo Tan, interview with the National Parks Board, Singapore, 19 April, 2011. Tan Wee Kiat, interview with the Centre for Liveable Cities, Singapore, 2 April, 2012.
OTHER SOURCES:
Avadhani, P.N., Wee, Y.C., Chou, L.M., Bri ett, C., Hale, R., Ho, H.C., Lim, K., Lim, K.K. and Subaraj, R., Master Plan for the Conservation of Nature in Singapore (Singapore: Malayan Nature Society (Singapore Branch), October 1990). Chan, L. and Corlett, R.T. (Eds.), Biodiversity in the Nature Reserves of Singapore (Singapore: National Parks Board, 1997). Chan, L., Hillel, O., Elmqvist, T., Werner, P., Holman, N., Mader, A. and Calcaterra, E., User’s Manual on the Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity (also known as the City Biodiversity Index) (Singapore: National Parks Board, 2014). Corlett, R.T., “ e Ecological Transformation of Singapore, 1819–1990”, Journal of Biogeography 19 (1992): 412. Corlett, R.T., “Vegetation”, in Chia, L.S., Rahman, A. and Tay, D. (Eds.), e Biophysical Environment of Singapore (Singapore: Singapore University Press, 1991), 141. Francesch-Huidobro, M., Governance, Politics and the Environment: A Singapore Study, (Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2008), 178, 182. Hesp, Patrick A., “ e Environmental Impact Assessment Process in Singapore with Particular Respect to Coastal Environments and the Role of NGOs.” Journal of Coastal Conservation 1 (1995).
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 59 17/6/15 9:39 AM 60 References
International Union for Conservation of Nature, About Biodiversity, last updated 17 January, 2013, accessed 1 August, 2013, http://www.iucn.org/what/biodiversity/about/. Lee, K.Y., From ird World to First: e Singapore Story 1965–2000: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew (Singapore: Times Media Private Limited, 2000), 199–200. Leong, C.C., Chan, L., Tay, S., Phoon-Cohen, P., Khoo, H.W., See, T.C.F., Chew, S., Hale, R., Chou, L.M., Chan Jr., W., Lee, P., Heah, M.E.S. and Waller, E., Singapore Green Plan: Recommendations by the Nature Conservation Review Committee (Singapore: 2000). International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Case Concerning Land Reclamation by Singapore in and Around the Straits of Johor (Malaysia v. Singapore) (Germany: Hamburg, 2003). Lim, S.S.L., Ng, P.K.L, Leo, W.H.T. and Yeow, C.W., Rhythm of the Sea: e Life and Times of Labrador Beach (Singapore: Division of Biology, School of Science, Nanyang Technological University and Department of Zoology, National University of Singapore, 1994) Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore, Factsheet on MOU on Oil Spill Resources, 24 September, 2007. Ministry of the Environment, e Singapore Green Plan: Towards a Model Green City (Singapore: Ministry of the Environment, 1992). Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources, Singapore Green Plan, last updated 6 February, 2013, accessed 1 August, 2013, http://app.mewr.gov.sg/web/Contents/Contents.aspx?ContId=1342. Ministry of Foreign A airs, Malaysia, 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the Dispute Concerning Land Reclamation Activities by Singapore Impinging Upon Malaysia’s Rights in and around the Straits of Johor Inclusive of the Areas around Point 20, Malaysia v. Singapore, Request for Provisional Measures (2003). Ministry of National Development, O cial Opening of Sungei Buloh Nature Park, Press Release issued by Parks & Recreation Department, Singapore, 6 December, 1993. Ministry of National Development Press Release, Deferment of Reclamation Works at Pulau Ubin, Singapore, 14 January, 2002. Ministry of National Development, “Singapore: City in a Garden, Celebrating a Century and a Half of Botanical Success” MND Link, May–June 2009. National Parks Board Press Release, Close Partnership Between Government Agencies and the Community Turns Eco-Link@BKE from Vision to Reality, 5 October, 2013. National Parks Board Press Release, Construction Starts for Southeast Asia’s First Ecological Corridor. Eco-Link@ BKE to Link Two Nature Reserves Across the Expressway, 30 July, 2011. National Parks Board, Conserving our Biodiversity, Singapore’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2009, accessed 1 August, 2013, http://www.nparks.gov.sg/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id= 70&Itemid=166. National Parks Board, Natural Areas Survey Project Final Report. 2008. Singapore: NParks Internal Document. National Parks Board Press Release, Singapore’s First Dipterocarp Arboretum at Yishun Park, 10 July, 2008. National Parks Board Press Release, New Arboretum of Giant Trees Launched at Southern Ridges, 21 April, 2010. National Parks Board, Our City in a Garden, accessed 1 August, 2013, http://www.nparks.gov.sg/ciag/. National Parks Board Press Release, Singapore’s Biggest Scale Marine Biodiversity Expedition Uncovers New Records and Rediscoveries for Singapore, 23 October, 2012. National Parks Board Press Release, Comprehensive Marine Biodiversity Survey of Singapore, 7 December, 2010. Nature Society (Singapore), History and Accomplishments, accessed 25 July, 2011, http://www.nss.org.sg/about. aspx?id=2.
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 60 17/6/15 9:39 AM References 61
Nature Society (Singapore), e Singapore Blue Plan 2009: A Proposal by Civil Society for Integrated and Balanced Conservation of Singapore’s Marine Heritage, accessed 1 August, 2013, http://www.nss.org.sg/old/ pdf/blueplan- nal.pdf. Neo, B.S., Gwee, J. and Mak, C., “Growing a city in a garden”, in Gwee, J. (Ed.), Case Studies in Public Governance — Building Institutions in Singapore (Singapore: Routledge, 2012), 21. Ng L., A City in a Garden, Ethos World Cities Summit Issue (Singapore: Civil Service College of Singapore, June 2008). Ng, P.K.L. and Sivasothi, N. (Eds.), A Guide to the Mangroves of Singapore I: e Ecosystem and Plant Diversity (Singapore: Singapore Science Centre, 1999). Public Utilities Board, ABC Waters Programme, accessed 1 August, 2013, http://www.pub.gov.sg/abcwaters/Pages/ default.aspx Poon Hong Yuen, (Speech presented at) Commemorating 50 Years of Greening Singapore: Community in Action for Kheam Hock, Singapore, 2 February, 2013. Singapore Parliament, Second Reading of the National Parks Bill, 29 March, 1990. Retrieved from: http://www. nparks.gov.sg/cms/index.php?option=com_news&task=view&id=11&__=. Singapore Parliament, Estimate of Expenditure for the Financial Year 1 April, 1994 to 31st March, 1995, Committee of Supply, Hansard (Column 1326), 18 March, 1994. “Plant a Tree Drive in Singapore”, e Straits Times, 12 June, 1963. “Four new Nature Ways to link green spaces in Singapore” e Straits Times, 3 February, 2013. Tan, W.K., “Preface”, in Chan, L. and Corlett, R.T. (Eds.), Biodiversity in the Nature Reserves of Singapore (Singapore: National Parks Board, 1997). Tan, Y.S., Lee, T.J and Tan, K., Clean, Green and Blue: Singapore’s Journey Towards Environmental and Water Sustainability (Singapore: ISEAS Publishing, 2009). Teo, S. and Chew, P.T., Biodiversity Status Report of the Nature Conservation Areas of Singapore, 1994–96 (Singapore: National Parks Board, 1996). Urban Redevelopment Authority (Singapore), “Chairman’s Message”, in 1998 Annual Report (Singapore: Urban Redevelopment Authority, 1998). Urban Redevelopment Authority, Master Plan 1998 (1999), http://www.ura.gov.sg/pr/text/pr99-01.html. Urban Redevelopment Authority Press Release, Creating a “City-in-a-garden”, 6 March, 2006. Urban Redevelopment Authority “URA Launches Key Ideas for Enhancing Parks and Waterbodies to Improve Quality of Living Environment”, http://www.ura.gov.sg/pr/text/pr02-40.html. Wee, Y.C. and Hale, R., “ e Nature Society (Singapore) and the Struggle to Conserve Singapore’s Nature Areas”, Nature in Singapore 1 (2008): 41–49. Wong, T.W., “ e Singapore Hornbill Project: A Great but Simple Idea”, e Raes Bulletin of Zoology Supplement No. 24 (2011): 3–4. Wong, Y. K. and Alphonso, A.G., e Preservation of the Mangrove Area at Tanjong Karang (Singapore: NParks internal paper). World Economic Forum, Pilot Environmental Sustainability Index: An Initiative of the Global Leaders for Tomorrow Environment Task Force, World Economic Forum. Annual Meeting 2000, Davos, Switzerland (New Haven: Yale Centre for Environmental Law and Policy, 2000). Available online at: http://sedac.ciesin. columbia.edu/es/esi/ESI_00.pdf. Yale University, Environmental Performance Index (EPI), accessed 1 July, 2012, http://epi.yale.edu/epi2012/ rankings.
. . . . .
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 61 17/6/15 9:39 AM 01-72_Bio_SL.indd 62 17/6/15 9:39 AM Appendices
APPENDIX A TIMELINE OF KEY BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION EFFORTS
(I) Policy and Institutional Milestones
Timeframe Historical Development / Milestone
e rst piece of legislation was ocially enacted by the British to protect forests. It was known as Ordinance No. 1908 XXII of 1908, more commonly referred to as “ e Forest Ordinance 1908”.
e objectives for the forest reserves explicitly spelt out that the forest reserves were not for commercial exploitation 1935 but for “absolute protection to provide areas for research, education, recreation and as samples of the country’s biographic history and heritage” and this remained as the guiding policy of nature conservation to present times.
H. Tanakadate and K. Koriba, the Japanese Directors of the Gardens during the Second World War, were 1945 instrumental in ensuring that the reserves survived the war.
Bukit Timah, Kranji and Pandan, together with Labrador Cli and the Municipal Water Catchment area became 1951 legally protected under the Nature Reserves Ordinance 1951, the predecessor of the existing National Parks Act.
e Parks and Trees Unit was formed to carry out the vision of then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew to transform 1967 Singapore into a Garden City.
1970s e Nature Reserves Board was formed to manage and administer the nature reserves.
e Singapore Botanic Gardens merged with the Parks and Trees Unit to form the Parks and Recreation 1976 Department under the Ministry of National Development (MND).
e construction of the Bukit Timah Expressway was completed, resulting in the separation of a small part of the 1985 central catchment area from the rest. ese would later become Bukit Timah Nature Reserve (BTNR) and Central Catchment Nature Reserve (CCNR) respectively.
Mr Richard Hale stumbled upon an area around Sungei Buloh that was rich in bird numbers and diversity. e area 1986 was slated for development at that time.
e decision was made by MND to develop Sungei Buloh into a nature park aer MNS-Singapore engaged key 1989 government ocials and showed them around the area.
e National Parks Board (NParks) was established to manage the Singapore Botanic Gardens, Fort Canning Park 1990 and Nature Reserves in Singapore. BTNR and CCNR retained as Nature Reserves. e Singapore Botanic Gardens and Fort Canning Park were designated as National Parks and came under the management of NParks.
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 63 17/6/15 9:39 AM 64 Appendix A
Timeframe Historical Development / Milestone
NParks initiated a 6-year project aimed at surveying the physical and biological aspects of the Nature Reserves with one-to-one support funding from the Cheng Kim Loke Foundation. It was a landmark in the history of nature 1991 conservation as it amassed valuable data on the biodiversity in the Nature Reserves over a continuous period of time.
e Ministry of the Environment (ENV) spearheaded the draing of the Singapore Green Plan, which included a 1992 section on nature conservation. In June 1992, the Singapore Green Plan was presented at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Singapore signed the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on 10th March 1993. e Singapore Green Plan 1993 1993 was launched by ENV. e Plan included nineteen “Nature Areas” (terrestrial and marine), which were determined via consultation with the Nature Society of Singapore (NSS).
1993 Sungei Buloh Nature Park was ocially opened by then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong.
1995 Singapore rati ed the CBD on 21st December 1995. NParks was designated the National Focal Point for Singapore.
With the merger of the Parks and Recreation Department and the former NParks in 1996, the new National Parks 1996 Board embraced under its administrative umbrella, in addition to National Parks and Nature Reserves, all parks, streetscape greenery and Nature Areas that lie in the parks system.
ENV initiated a review of the Singapore Green Plan with the prime objective of updating it for relevancy. NParks 1997 was invited to chair the Nature Conservation Review Committee (NCRC).
e ASEAN Regional Centre for Biodiversity Conservation (ARCBC) designated NParks as the National Biodiversity Reference Unit (NBRU) for Singapore. 1999 Singapore joins ASEANET, a regional Technical Co-operation Network for sustainable development through capacity-building in taxonomy. NParks was appointed as the National Coordinating Institute.
Hindhede Nature Park opened as green bu er for BTNR. 2001 MND deferred land reclamation at Chek Jawa and NParks took over management of Chek Jawa. NParks was also tasked to be responsible for marine conservation.
Two new Nature Reserves, Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve and Labrador Nature Reserve, were gazetted on 1 January 2002 2002 by MND.
URA launched the Parks and Waterbodies Plan as one of its Special and Detailed Controls Plans. For the rst 2002 time, areas with biodiversity outside of nature reserves were accorded some form of status in the land use planning process as “nature areas”.
When SGP2012 was launched, the Conserving Nature Committee was set up to address biodiversity conservation issues. It was decided that the 22 Nature Areas in URA’s Special and Detailed Controls plan will be kept as long as possible.
Singapore won the land reclamation case at the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) against 2003 Malaysia. e case precipitated the formation of a section in 2004 within NParks to look at marine conservation in Singapore.
Sungei Buloh Nature Reserve was designated as Singapore’s rst ASEAN Heritage Park and recognised by Wetlands International for its importance to migratory birds.
On the establishment of the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (ACB), NParks was designated as Singapore’s National 2005 Focal Point.
e National Biodiversity Centre (NBC) was established on 22 May 2006. e NBRC website also made its debut on 2006 this day.
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 64 17/6/15 9:39 AM Appendix A 65
Timeframe Historical Development / Milestone
Establishment of the Centre for Urban Greenery and Ecology (CUGE) in December 2007, in conjunction with the Workforce Development Authority, to share and advance expertise on urban greenery and ecology.
2007 Establishment of the inter-ministerial and inter-agency Coastal and Marine Environment Policy Committee and Technical Committee for Coastal and Marine Environment. e aim of these Committees was to formulate e ective policies and management solutions for the coastal and marine environment on the basis of sound scienti c knowledge and good data.
An NParks Corporate Retreat that focused on biodiversity conservation was held with the aim of creating a systemic approach to roll out biodiversity conservation e orts within the organisation. 2008 Mr. Mah Bow Tan, then Minister of National Development of Singapore, proposed the CBD-led development of the city biodiversity index at the 9th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
NParks launched the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAP) that mapped out Singapore’s master 2009 plan for biodiversity. Dairy Farm Nature Park opened as green bu er for BTNR.
Enrichment of urban biodiversity included as a key thrust in NParks’ new “City in a Garden” vision. Infusing 2010 Biodiversity Work Group was set up within NParks to encourage cross-divisional urban biodiversity initiatives. Presentation of CBI for endorsement by the Parties to the CBD at CBD COP 10 at the City Summit in Nagoya.
MND began construction of Eco-Link to reinstate some form of ecological connectivity between BTNR and CCNR. 2011 BTNR was designated as an ASEAN Heritage Park. Community in Nature (CIN) programme was set up to establish and nurture a local network of individuals, groups and organisations keen on nature conservation.
Completion of Phase 1 of Sungei Buloh Master Plan, which focused on coastal protection works. Launching of 2012 Phase 2 of Master Plan to develop a 31-hectare SBWR extension.
NParks launched Community in Action for Kheam Hock, the rst in a series of Nature Ways that aimed to involve community stakeholders in an e ort to create links for biodiversity between parks, Nature Areas and Nature 2013 Reserves. Two new Nature Areas were designated by URA in the latest Land Use Plan – one coastal and marine (comprising Beting Bronok and Pulau Unum) and one terrestrial (Jalan Gemala).
BTNR closed for major restoration, repair and upgrading works. Springleaf Nature Park opened as green bu er for CCNR. SBWR Extension (Phase 2 of Master Plan) completed as green bu er for SBWR and opened to the public. 2014 e Ubin Project was launched to consult the public on proposed initiatives for P. Ubin, including shoreline restoration and enhancement works, and a centre for research and education. Announcement of Singapore’s rst marine park at Sisters’ Islands and commencement of public guided walks.
Launching of new citizen science programmes as part of Community in Nature and SGBioAtlas App to tap on a 2015 wider spectrum of the public for biodiversity data collection. Partial re-opening of BTNR for visitors on weekends.
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 65 17/6/15 9:39 AM 66 Appendix A
(II) Biodiversity Surveys Conducted by NParks (1993 to 2015)
Timeframe Survey and Purpose Locations Surveyed
1993–1997 Biodiversity survey of Nature Reserves Bukit Timah Nature Reserve Central Catchment Nature Reserve
1994–1996 Survey of areas in Singapore with nature to map the nineteen Outside of the Nature Reserves Nature Areas for URA’s planning purposes for drawing up URA’s Development Guide Plans.
1998–2003 Survey of Pulau Tekong ora (including mangroves) and fauna Pulau Tekong (Besar & Kechil), Pulau before and aer reclamation. Semechek, Pulau Unum
2003–2004 Biodiversity Survey. Biodiversity Project Ground Field Survey of Mainly terrestrial sites outside the Nature Natural Areas in Singapore. Reserves
2004–2005 Ad-hoc Rapid Appraisals of Southern Islands. A handful of southern islands, including Pulau Hantu, Pulau Kusu, Pulau Semakau and Pulau Jong. Both terrestrial and marine areas.
2006–2008 Natural Areas Survey Team. To ll in data gaps and provide 20 mangrove sites a more thorough inventory for the purposes of conservation 8 marine sites management. 4 terrestrial sites (chosen from the Ground Field Survey)
2008–2009 Repeat surveys of trees and some animal groups in Nature Bukit Timah Nature Reserve Reserves. Central Catchment Nature Reserve
2010–2012 Nature Reserves Survey. To ll in information gaps regarding the Labrador Nature Reserve two new Nature Reserves and Pulau Ubin. Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve Pulau Ubin Nature Area
2010–2015 Comprehensive Marine Biodiversity Survey. To provide an Coastal and marine areas including inter-tidal inventory of all our coastal and marine habitats. Heavy habitats and the seabed. partnership with academic institutions and civil societies.
2013–2015 Nee Soon Swamp Forest Survey. To conduct a qualitative and Central Catchment Nature Reserve quantitative faunal survey of freshwater stream and swamp habitats within Central Catchment Nature Reserve.
2014 Extensive survey and collection of native tree seeds for Bukit Timah Nature Reserve propagation during masting event. (A masting is a mass Central Catchment Nature Reserve owering and seeding phenomenon exhibited by some tree and plant species, which usually happens once every few years when triggered by certain environmental conditions.)
2015–2017 Bukit Timah Nature Reserve Survey. To add to baseline Bukit Timah Nature Reserve knowledge from previous surveys in the 1990s and 2000s. e survey will involve NParks sta , scientists from academia and domain experts. Source: NParks
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 66 17/6/15 9:39 AM APPENDIX B GOVERNANCE TOOLS FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
(I) Legal Instruments
Tool Description
Nature Reserves Ordinance Placed Bukit Timah, Kranji and Pandan, together with Labrador Cli and the Municipal Water (1951) Catchment area under legal protection.
National Parks Act (1990) Provided for the formation of the National Parks Board (NParks), and for the new Board to manage the Singapore Botanic Gardens, Fort Canning Park and Nature Reserves in Singapore. BTNR and CCNR retained legal protection as Nature Reserves. e Singapore Botanic Gardens and Fort Canning Park were designated as National Parks.
National Parks Act (1996) Reconstituted the NParks and merged with the Parks and Recreation Department. e new NParks embraced under its administrative umbrella, in addition to National Parks and Nature Reserves, all parks, streetscape greenery and Nature Areas that lie in the parks system.
Parks and Trees Act (2005) Provided for the planting, maintenance and conservation of trees and plants within national parks, nature reserves, tree conservation areas, heritage road green bu ers and other NParks- managed areas. Repealed the Parks and Trees Act (1996 revised edition, rst enacted in 1975).
(II) Executive Policies
Tool Description
Garden City programmes e greening up of Singapore in the 1960s to 1980s laid the green infrastructural skeleton for urban biodiversity conservation and the infusing of biodiversity into urban spaces today.
Community Engagement Community and stakeholder engagement is crucial for NParks to continue its greening and Programmes biodiversity conservation e orts. Various divisions within NParks have had long-standing volunteer and community engagement programmes, and in 2011, a Community in Nature programme was set up to establish and nurture a local network of individuals, groups and organisations keen on nature conservation.
Parks and Waterbodies Plan Launched by URA in 2002, the Parks and Waterbodies Plan designated 19 nature areas outside of nature reserves. e Plan also aims to, among other things, make areas with nature more accessible to the public. is included the Central Catchment Nature Reserve and its surrounding, as well as Sungei Buloh Wetland Reserve and the surrounding Kranji Marshes.
Environmental Impact In 2008, the URA put in place an EIA administrative process to coordinate inter-agency e orts Assessment (EIA) to safeguard the environment. Prior to this process, EIAs were conducted on an ad-hoc basis, as Administrative Process requested by the National Environment Agency or by NParks.
National Biodiversity Strategy Produced in 2009 as the principle instrument for implementing the Convention on Biological and Action Plan (NBSAP) Diversity (CBD) locally, the NBSAP lays down the guiding principles for biodiversity conservation in Singapore.
City in a Garden (CIAG) A public outreach and communications plan was launched in 2011 to collect feedback from the Vision and Framework public on this new City in a Garden vision. In 2012, the vision was ocially launched, with the formulation of six key areas as part of the CIAG framework.
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 67 17/6/15 9:39 AM 68 Appendix B
Tool Description
Integrated Urban Coastal In 2009, Singapore ocially adopted and began implementing IUCM – a process and framework Management (IUCM) which work towards sustainable development of coastal areas. is includes marine biodiversity conservation. IUCM e orts are spearheaded by the TCCME and CMEPC.
Nature Conservation Master Drawn up in 2015, the NCMP serves to operationalise the NBSAP and is a comprehensive Plan (NCMP) master plan that will build upon past work and progress through consolidation, integration and synergisation of all NParks’ activities. Broadly, the NCMP comprises a physical plan, a programmatic plan, a research plan and a community stewardship plan.
(III) Institutions
Tool Description
Nature Reserves Board (NRB) e predecessor of the National Parks Board, the NRB was formed in the 1970s to administer and manage the then existing nature reserves.
Parks and Recreation e PRD was set up in the 1970s to implement Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s “Garden City” vision. It was Department (PRD) in charge of planting up streetscape and creating parks for recreational purposes.
National Parks Board (NParks) e statutory board in Singapore responsible for conserving, creating, sustaining and enhancing the green infrastructure of our City in a Garden.
Ministry of National Parent ministry of then PRD and current NParks. It aims to create an endearing home for Development (MND) Singaporeans and develop Singapore into a global city of knowledge, culture and excellence.
Nature Society Singapore e oldest non-governmental nature conservation organisation in Singapore. It is a member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and is dedicated to the appreciation, conservation, study and enjoyment of the natural heritage in Singapore, Malaysia and the surrounding region.
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 68 17/6/15 9:39 AM APPENDIX C LINKING BIODIVERSITY AND CLC’S LIVEABILITY FRAMEWORK
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 69 17/6/15 9:39 AM High Quality of Life
Competitive Sustainable Economy Environment
Outcomes (What’s)
Integrated Master Planning & Development Systems (How’s) % Think Long Term % “Fight Productively” % Build in Some Flexibility % Execute E ectively % Innovate Systemically
Dynamic Urban Governance % Lead with Vision and Pragmatism % Build a Culture of Integrity % Cultivate Sound Institutions % Involve the Community as Stakeholders % Work with Markets
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 70 17/6/15 9:39 AM The CLC Liveability Framework derives from Singapore’s urban development experience and is a useful guide for developing sustainable and liveable cities. The general principles under Integrated Master Planning and Development and Dynamic Urban Governance are reflected in the themes found in Biodiversity: Nature Conservation in the Greening of Singapore detailed below.
Integrated Master Planning & Development Think long-term Lee Kuan Yew first initiated the idea of greening the cities early in the 1960s. This was a long-term strategy to mitigate the effects of urbanisation and prevent Singapore from turning into a concrete jungle. (see 4.1.i City greening, p. 12)
Build-in some flexibility The government decided to conserve areas of rich biodiversity such as Sungei Buloh in 1989, even though it was originally slated to be developed into an agro-technology park (see 4.3.i The conservation of Sungei Buloh (1989), p. 18), and to defer the reclamation of Chek Jawa in response to new information about the species diversity in the area. (see 5.1 Chek Jawa and marine conservation, p. 27)
Innovate systemically Faced with the challenge of retaining Pulau Semakau’s original biodiversity, the government and academics did something unprecedented; successfully replanting 13 hectares of mangroves. (see Box Story 1: Planting mangroves at Pulau Semakau, p. 22) In 2008, Singapore developed its own Singapore Index on Cities’ Biodiversity to address the lack of a comprehensive index on urban biodiversity in cities. (see Box Story 3: The development of the Singapore Index, p. 37)
Dynamic Urban Governance Build a culture of integrity Faced with a limited mandate and manpower shortages in the early decades of Singapore’s independence, NParks and its predecessor agencies still believed that nature conservation was a worthwhile goal, and worth doing well. They did not compromise on scientific rigour, and worked hard to lay the foundations for Singapore’s later, more comprehensive efforts to conserve biodiversity. (See 4.2 Early government institutions – challenges and evolution, p. 14)
Work with community as stakeholders In 2011, the Community in Nature initiative was launched to connect, educate and inspire diverse communities to actively conserve and celebrate Singapore’s natural heritage. ‘Nature Way’ corridors encourage residents to cultivate plants and trees that are biodiversity friendly. The long-term aim is for the community to take ownership of the living environment and nature around the area. (see 5.6 A new era of biodiversity conservation, p. 39)
01-72_Bio_SL.indd 71 17/6/15 9:39 AM 01-72_Bio_SL.indd 72 17/6/15 9:39 AM