We stand at a crossroads between the country’s development and the conservation of the natural environment.
Climate change has unleashed its fury upon the world, and Singapore is no exception.
30% of the island-city state is elevated only 5 metres above mean sea level, subjecting it to the adverse effects of sea level rise. Both in 2018 and January 2023, the East Coast Park suffered from drainage overflow and flooding, a real-life manifestation of how global warming could affect us.
A canal in East Coast Park overflowing due to an unusually high tide in 2018. Source: The Straits Times
Rising sea levels are certainly a pressing issue for us, but we have devised a solution.
Long Island: a dual-use housing and recreation project
The proposed Long Island Plan. Source: Urban Redevelopment Authority
This is Long Island. The Urban Redevelopment Authority is currently conducting extensive feasibility studies for this ambitious project, but there is already plenty of information about it.
With 800 ha (equivalent to 43 RI Y1-4 campuses) of land area, the reclaimed island stretches from the Bay East Garden in Marina Bay to the Tanah Merah Ferry Terminal near Changi. It features two tidal gates in between its three sections, forming an elevated fortress that shields our east coast from sea level rise and flooding.
However, there’s a reason why they decided against building a sea wall spanning the same distance (besides the fact that it would be impractical and appear unsightly) – the Long Island has other purposes planned for it too.
An artist’s impression of the view towards Long Island from East Coast Park. Source: Urban Redevelopment Authority
The westernmost section of the island, which connects to Marina East, is slated to become a district of commercial and residential developments.
The central section of the island has been proposed to become a hub for luxury, recreational water activities.
Lastly, the eastern part of the island, connecting to Tanah Merah and the future Changi Business Park, will be used to extend the Changi waterfront district into a centre for aviation and logistics.
Furthermore, the newly formed reservoir bordered by East Coast Park and Long Island helps combat Singapore’s inherent issue of water insecurity, by adding on to our water supply.
Not only does the Long Island plan offer 60,000 new private and public properties, but it also saves the East Coast Park from sea level rise. However, it is not flawless, and I believe that the darker side of land reclamation deserves attention too.
The Obscurity of Singapore’s Sand Imports
Singapore land reclamation projects have historically all required a monstrous amount of riverbed sand. Truthfully, Singapore’s lack of transparency about how they obtain their sand is concerning.
In 2019, National Geographic produced a documentary titled “How Sand Mining Destroys One Home to Build Another”. It was a saddening one, no doubt, but it also revealed to us the extent to which our development can harm the planet, as well as how surreptitious our sand imports can get.
A Cambodian environmental group named “Mother Nature” brought to light the shocking news in 2015 that Cambodia had been significantly underreporting the excessive amount of sand it exported to Singapore. Shortly after this, in 2017, the humiliated Cambodian government eternally banned all of its sand exports, citing environmental concerns.
Column chart of the mass of sand imports to Singapore against the mass of sand exports from Cambodia reported to the UN. Source: The Cambodia Daily
The operation of heavy machinery during sand mining wipes out species of crabs, fish, and other marine life that coastal residents rely on to make a living. For locals who reside in coastal areas, sand mining causes the collapse of homes and infrastructure too. For example, over 2,000 houses sank into the river along Vietnam’s Mekong Delta from 2016 to 2023. Evidently, the effect of unethical, excessive sand mining would exacerbate these already severe consequences even further.
Sand mining occurring in a branch of the Mekong River near Vietnam’s Dong Thap province. Source: VNExpress International
National Development Minister Desmond Lee stated on January 9, 2024 that Singapore imports sand from a range of sources, where all participating importers must ensure that they abide by the source countries’ rules and regulations. However, doubts still remain. Our importers’ questionable track record of ensuring that all sand is sourced ethically raises concerns about the environmental impact of all land reclamation projects in the past, present, and future, including the Long Island.
Singapore has reclaimed some 140 sq km of land (highlighted in light red) over the past two centuries, and will continue to do so in the coming years (highlighted in red). Source: BiblioAsia Singapore
Singapore continues to dredge and import sand from other Southeast Asian countries that have less stringent regulations for sand mining (i.e. it is not completely banned). As this upcoming large-scale reclamation project that is twice the geographic and financial scale of Marina Bay emerges, one would fear that our extensive sand dredging is detrimentally affecting livelihoods all over the world. The social and economic impacts of sand mining are very real and cannot afford to be ignored.
Ecological Damage
Sand mining is environmentally destructive for a range of reasons. Firstly, the large-scale dredging of sand from the river bed increases the water’s turbidity, causing water pollution. High sedimentation in river waters blocks sunlight from marine plant species, inhibiting their photosynthesis and survival.
Secondly, it causes significant riverbank erosion. The removal of sand disrupts the river’s natural flow, increasing the force with which the water hits the riverbank, thus changing flood cycles and leading to further downstream erosion.
A subsided riverbank that gave way along the Vietnamese Mekong Delta. Source: Mekong Eye
Thirdly, it causes severe ecosystem disruption. When the sand needed by aquatic animals to lay eggs and find food is removed, they are unable to survive and are thus wiped out.
While the diversity of sand import sources allows these environmental impacts to be less regionally concentrated and thus less severe, it is undeniable that sand mining is harmful to the environment and aquatic species.
The Crossroads of Conservation and Survival
With all these trade-offs in mind, we land ourselves at a crossroads.
Conservation or Construction? It’s our choice to make. Source: Sharon Spano
Either we choose to go ahead with the Long Island Plan, potentially incurring costly consequences for our natural environment, or we decide against it, leaving our east coast vulnerable to high tides.
However, this is not the first time the dilemma of conservation against construction has arisen in the process of our national development.
In 2013, plans for the Cross Island Line, a fully underground MRT line that would run from Changi to the Jurong Industrial Estate via Ang Mo Kio, were announced. Members of nature groups, particularly the Nature Society Singapore (NSS), were alarmed by the proposed plan for the stretch of Cross Island Line between Bright Hill station and Turf City station that ran directly under the Central Catchment Nature Reserve. They suggested that it be rerouted along Lornie Road instead to avoid excavation under the nature reserve.
Map of the direct alignment tunnel route (blue) and skirted alignment tunnel route (red). Source: SGTrains
Thus, the authorities faced a similar quandary.
One option was for them to bore the tunnels for the train tracks directly under the nature reserve, potentially causing harm to the flora and fauna in the nature reserve. The earmarked areas of the nature reserve for the tunnel borehole machines to enter the ground made nature societies fear that the nature reserve would become a large construction site and estimated that 15,000 sqm (about 3 football fields) of lush forest would have to be cleared.
Two tunnel boring machines are used to excavate the MRT tunnels near Tampines North (CR6) MRT station. Source: Cross Island Line Construction Blogspot
Alternatively, they could skirt the MRT line around the nature reserve, thus avoiding causing harm to the flora and fauna in the nature reserve. However, not only would this prolong commuters’ travel time by 6 minutes due to the stretch of track being extended to 9 km, but it would also incur an additional S$2 billion in construction costs.
This was undoubtedly a difficult situation to be in.
In 2021, the very same Nature Society Singapore (NSS) raised concerns about the earmarking of Dover Forest for future residential uses, bringing up the importance of preserving the unique flora and fauna species in the forest, as well as the green space as a whole.
Dover Forest is a 33ha plot of lush greenery containing 120 and 158 different flora and fauna species respectively. Source: Dover Forest Resource Site
Again, it was either they cleared the entire forest for further development, forgoing the conservation of wildlife and suffering the environmental effects of deforestation (reduction in carbon sequestration, increased risk of flooding and increased urban heat, just to name a few), or they conserved the entire forest in its natural state, potentially rendering the Housing Board unable to cater satisfactorily to the rapidly growing housing needs of the population.
However, what we find with these two past examples is that a definitive decision that disregards the concerns of one party in favour of the other is typically not made. In other words,
It’s Never a Zero-Sum Game
After 5 years of extensive studies, the Land Transport Authority (LTA) came up with a balanced solution for the Cross Island Line tunnel alignment conundrum.
Extensive soil investigation and biodiversity studies were conducted in the Central Catchment Nature Reserve through an existing nature trail, the Sime Trail.
Next, it was decided that the tunnel would run directly under the nature reserve at a depth of 70 metres (equivalent to a 25-storey HDB block).
Thus, the most ideal balance of conservation and construction in this circumstance was found – this solution kept commute times relatively short, while keeping impacts on the flora and fauna in the nature reserve at their minimum, all while incurring just S$20 million in extra costs.
The excavation project for the tunnels between Bright Hill and Turf City stations is the deepest in Singapore’s MRT history. Source: The Straits Times Infographics
Regarding the Dover Forest dilemma, the HDB made a compromise by choosing to only develop the eastern portion of the forest for public housing, while preserving the western portion for the foreseeable future to conserve its comparatively richer biodiversity.
The Ulu Pandan Forest development plan. Source: TODAY Online
None of these solutions are perfect by any means. The former solution does not completely avoid environmental impacts on the nature reserve, while the latter solution neither fully caters to the population’s housing requirements, nor preserves the entire forest’s flora and fauna.
However, it is evident that both solutions found a balance between conservation and construction, and I believe that we can apply this to the Long Island Plan too.
Coming Up with a Balanced Solution
Our ultimate goal should be to come up with a solution that is imperfect yet balanced. The idea is to find a sweet spot that minimises negative impacts on both the country’s development and the natural environment.
Temasek Junior College student Mr Justin Goh’s suggestion to The Straits Times is already a good start. By using ash from Semakau Landfill in the place of conventional sand, we can reduce the overall environmental impact of such a large-scale reclamation project.
Studies are already ongoing to determine the feasibility of using incinerated ash to build Tuas Port. Source: EDB/SPH
However, such solutions often fall short in terms of their scale. While they are able to reduce the environmental impact of such construction projects to a certain extent, trade-offs in other aspects must still be made to obtain a perceived improvement.
There is often a nuanced but present priority of construction over conservation exhibited by authorities and the general public towards such cases. I believe that should not be the case.
Instead of toning down the notable social, economic, and environmental impacts of sand mining by covering it up with the poor excuse of feasibility or environmental studies, we should be more willing to admit that such flaws with our plans do exist. People and the authorities ought to be more vocal about the potential environmental damage that a construction project could cause, so that we can avoid leaving the job up to the Nature Society Singapore to raise objections every time such a conflict occurs and instead start working on solutions earlier.
Environmental impacts should be viewed as a factor equally important to national development as they can lead to adverse social and ecological drawbacks that outweigh the benefits of development.
The objective of writing this article is not to pitch a divine proposal that contains a flawless solution to this dilemma with minimal trade-offs for our nation and the natural environment. I do not have the credentials to propose a panacea for all future conservation vs. construction challenges.
However, I do hope that the authorities and the general public become more aware of the sheer importance of juxtaposing the environment and development. The Long Island Plan is yet another difficult situation involving these two seemingly starkly opposed ideas, except that it is of a much larger scale than ever seen before.
I am a firm believer in the sweet spot. If people and the government could recognise environmental costs as a valid concern and proactively work towards solving it without reminders from nature groups, then we would be able to come to more reasonable, balanced conclusions and pave the way towards a more prosperous Singapore.
