When the Land Transport Authority (LTA) of Singapore announced plans to conduct a Soil Investigation (SI) within the MacRitchie Nature Reserve, the Facebook comment section of local advocacy group Love Our MacRitchie Forest exploded with anger.
The Soil Investigation was the first step in what was seen to be a long-term plan to construct an extension of the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) train system, one that would go under the Central Catchment Nature Reserve. The LTA posits that the new train line (which supports a ridership of about 3 million people daily, over half of Singapore’s total population) will potentially save east-west commuters up to 30 to 40 minutes of travel time - a significant amount, when you consider how small Singapore is.
The MacRitchie Rainforest, which is part of the Central Catchment Nature Reserve. (Click through image for source.)
A SIGN OF CORRUPTION?
However, opponents argued, the train line would also damage MacRitchie irreversibly. Commenters harshly criticized the government’s “blatant disregard for nature”, calling them out for being coldly driven by greedy ambitions of higher productivity and money, instead of being driven by compassion and eco-consciousness.
… OR WAS THIS A SINCERE ATTEMPT TO EVALUATE A COMPLEX ISSUE?
The LTA consulted many active local environmentalists about the decision to pursue the “Cross Island Line” before ultimately making the final choice to go ahead with the SI, yet the impression that this decision was pre-determined by morally-corrupt government officials weighed heavily in the minds of the public.
Why was this so? Why were people not aware of the Soil Investigations that were concurrently happening in the potential alternate train line location, evidence of the LTA’s earnest attempt at fairly evaluating where the train line would best be located? And, perhaps more importantly, why were people not moved by the numerous mitigation measures that were proposed by external environmentalists—proposals concerned with issues such as run off, and mitigations that included a 4.5 times reduction of the number of boreholes to be drilled from 72 to 16, and a ban on altering surface vegetation—and that were subsequently accepted by the LTA?
A comprehensive explanation of the potential damages from the Soil Investigation and a list of the mitigations undertaken can be viewed in these helpful infographics by students from the National University of Singapore. Click through to see more
One clear reason for the resistance and anger towards the LTA announcement was the misconceptions about what it had set out to do; Many people falsely conflated the Soil Investigation with the actual construction of the train line, where the Soil Investigation was intended merely to test the possibility of construction (At the time of publication, the LTA’s website states that whether the line will actually be constructed under the Nature Reserve has yet to be decided). Some others also thought the train line was to be constructed within the Nature Reserve, when - if it even were to be constructed - it would actually go under the Nature Reserve, deeper than will likely make an impact on the quality of the habitat above. Others still seemed uninformed about the mitigation measures altogether.
Beyond this reason, however, the reaction of the Singaporean public and the blame game that ensued reflect a bigger underlying cause rarely discussed in the local community: the issue of perceiving Nature solely as “pristine wilderness”. Thinking about Nature as the land which has been “untouched” by human beings presents wider questions for biodiversity conservation considerations.
THE MYTH OF “PRISTINE WILDERNESS”
When we decide the only Nature worth saving is only that which exists in National Parks and Nature Reserves, the environment suffers. (Click through image for source).
When the ideology of “Wild Nature” is adopted, it creates an unbalanced emphasis on spatial boundaries to define what is and what is not natural, encouraging the harmful perception that, while there are areas that cannot be exploited, the areas outside of these designated spaces can be exploited (such as in residential areas of everyday Singaporeans, over 80% of which is government housing, known as “HDB”s). Not only does this cause people to exclude themselves from environmental responsibility, it also limits the larger-scale restoration of degraded areas back into healthy ecosystems that can support a high level of biodiversity. Additionally, such thinking fails to recognize the continuously changing nature of environments through natural evolutionary processes. When we don’t factor in evolution in environmental policy, we do not provide an atmosphere for climate-adaptive conservation, in which species can move freely and safely between habitats. Climate-adaptive conservation practices will not only allow non-human species to escape increases in temperature, but also, as recent research has indicated, to increase the potential for adaptations to said increases.
SINGAPORE: A BIOPHILLIC CITY
Otters are just one example of reintroduced species in Singapore. (Click through image for source.)
The National Park Board of Singapore (NParks) has escaped such traps in their policies, thinking broadly to effect practical and powerful conservation programs, as indicated in their National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. The National Parks Board’s core principles outline the need for biodiversity and ecosystem considerations into broad national planning processes, and its goals include the rehabilitation of ex-situ habitats. These focuses have enabled the National Parks Board to implement species reintroduction and habitat recovery programs that span terrestrial and marine landscapes (both manmade and “untouched”). For example, native but locally-extinct species were reintroduced to the environment, such as otters and the Oriental Pied Hornbill - both of which have become much loved by the Singaporean public, and mangroves and coastal habitats have undergone restoration and reforestation works. NPark’s principles and goals have also empowered it to create a connection of “green corridors” which counters habitat fragmentation through urban development, and has facilitated the production of scientific environmental research and records of species databases, to better manage the health of the local environment and document the plant and animal life in Singapore.
Singapore's Park Connector Network, of which 300 km has already been completed over a 25 year period. (Click through image for source).
In light of such programs, it seems reductionist to call the LTA’s decision to go ahead with Soil Investigation work heartless and corrupt. The LTA underwent many rounds of consultation with environmentalists not only from the National Parks Board, but with many external activists as well.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENTS?
Critics of the Soil Investigation Plans as it has currently been outlined must evaluate what the argument for “Zero Impact” really means. In order for us to truly achieve “zero impact”, visitors must not be allowed to the Nature Reserves either, to avoid issues like compaction of the soil. It is important to recognize the hypocrisy of organizing big group guided eco-walks, but blocking the creation of better access to public transportation, which, if diverted, would not only cost tax payers an extra $2bn, but also result in longer commutes, taking away time that could be spent with family and friends.
The point of this piece is not to try to persuade you to stop resisting injustices in environmental protection - We should absolutely hold our political leaders to the highest standards of environmental governance. Rather, it is a call for more informed activism that seeks accurate and credible information from a large variety of sources, and it is a call for us to examine our own lifestyles and the way we think about nature before we start pointing fingers. It is imperative that we take ownership for the environmental degradation which we contribute to in our everyday lives, realizing that nature can and does exist in the urban spaces in which we live.
We must aim to reduce our carbon foot prints and the waste we produce. We must aim to promote the prosperity of non-human species in our neighborhoods and our homes, by planting diverse native greenery using the credible ecological knowledge we have amassed. We must aim to stop the blame game, to effect change by going out into our communities and making informed choices, and to volunteer to help with programs that matter.