Just how clean and green is S'pore?

By Andy Ho
SENIOR CORRESPONDENT

ENVIRONMENTALLY unsustainable. That is how Singapore's economy was described at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, recently, according to its Global Leaders of Tomorrow environment task force.

Why was the Republic ranked so low in a survey of 122 countries?

Of course, it grates on the nerves of a clean-and-green Singapore which, after all, passed environmental laws in the early 1970s, and set up an anti-pollution unit in the Prime Minister's Office in 1970 and the Ministry of the Environment in 1972.

Not surprisingly, the 2000 Global Competitiveness Report - also published by the WEF - ranked the Republic second in terms of effective environmental regulations and third in how stringently those regulations are enforced.

So it behooves Singapore to study the new WEF study's counter-intuitive conclusion.

Speaking pragmatically, industrial activity is this country's lifeblood. This means a high consumption of natural resources per capita, especially of fossil fuels, with huge impact on the environment.

How sustainable are Singapore's economic activities?

Yale University Professor Dan Esty and colleagues developed an Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) comprising 67 factors that describe how environmentally sustainable a nation's economic activities are.

The factors are grouped as biodiversity and other measures of environmental health, stresses on the environment, how susceptible people's health is to environmental disruptions, social and institutional capacity to cope with environmental challenges, and if a country works well with others on cross-border issues such as global warming.

What the index flags, say the researchers, is how countries such as Singapore may be approaching the limits of environmental sustainability. And some weaknesses do exist in Singapore's environmental management.

These shortcomings may occur before a facility is built, when it is in operation, or with what it does with the waste it generates.

First, before a major facility is constructed, the authorities may - or may not - require a formal environmental-impact assessment (EIA), as there is no EIA legislation. The current practice is that the Pollution Control Department (PCD) of the Environment Ministry requires major development projects to carry out an assessment.

The PCD issues a clearance to the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) to approve the development. The developer then submits building plans to the Building Control Division (BCD) and to technical divisions of the Public Works Department, for approval.

After the PCD inspects the completed premises for compliance, it gives the BCD clearance to issue a Temporary Occupation Permit.

While these labyrinthine arrangements may work, EIAs are being performed on an ad hoc basis, because there are no statutory guidelines as to when an EIA is required.

But given its small land mass, Singapore cannot afford errors in its land-use decisions. Sure, EIAs may cost between 0.5 and 1 per cent of proposed construction costs, but there may also be cost savings in avoiding post hoc changes that may be required as a project begins to infringe specific environmental laws during construction.

For example, at its own expense, the Nature Society of Singapore conducted an EIA when the Public Utilities Board (PUB) proposed an 18-hole golf course at the Lower Peirce Reservoir, a water-catchment forest and nature reserve.

The well-prepared EIA argued convincingly against the project. It found, among other things, that some of the area's 485 species of animals and 163 species of plants would be endangered.

The golf course was not built and the case illustrates why EIAs should not be left to the administrative discretion of bureaucracy.

EIA legislation guarantees Singapore's environmental resources will be safeguarded. That makes for improved sustainability.

Second, when a facility infringes environmental laws, a coordinated approach in dealing with the problem is difficult - because a few ministries have jurisdiction over various environmental matters. That is, apart from the Environment Ministry which covers mainly air- and water-pollution laws, as well as control over hazardous materials and toxic waste.

For example, the Ministry of National Development's Park and Recreation Department manages parks and green space, while its National Parks Board works to preserve natural flora and fauna.

The Agri-food and Veterinary Authority administers the Endangered Species Act, the Wild Animals and Birds Act, as well as the Fisheries Act. The URA oversees redevelopment in the city.

Then there is the Trade and Industry Ministry's PUB that oversees reservoir and catchment areas, while the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology's Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore administers the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act and the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act.

Given the diversity of laws and bodies involved, what is lacking is an umbrella environmental-protection agency.

This would eliminate overlapping jurisdictions between ministries, and strengthen Singapore's institutional capacity to deal with the environment by streamlining enforcement and compliance. The sweetener: There might be administrative savings as well.

Third, Singapore does not deal with waste products at the tail end of production well enough. In a society of consumers, waste can only increase.

For example, while Singaporeans produced 5,900 tonnes of solid waste daily in 1991, the estimated figure last year was 8,000 tonnes. This figure includes house- hold waste that is presently incinerated or buried in landfills.

But there is little land available for landfill - the site at Lorong Halus was closed in April 1999, while the new site at Pulau Semakau has a lifespan of fewer than 50 years.

Clearly, there is an urgent need to step up recycling - of which there is presently precious little in Singapore.

Singapore has much to be proud about in matters of the environment. So Prof Esty's negative assessment should not cause sulking but, instead, spur efforts to improve that record.

His data will be available on CD-ROM soon, and dissenters may crunch the data to see if his analysis can be faulted. He is a fair academic - I can attest to it because he taught me in graduate school.

But let us be fair to him next time: Give him some new facts to work with when world ESI rankings are re-worked. By attending to these shortfalls. It will be good for Singapore, anyway.