Best of our wild blogs: 2 Mar 17

My Singapore Story
No Roads Barred

Read more!

Singapore considering ban on sale of ivory

Channel NewsAsia 1 Mar 17;

SINGAPORE: The Singapore Government is considering a ban on the sale of ivory, Minister of State for National Development Koh Poh Koon said in Parliament on Wednesday (Mar 1).

The implementation details of a ban, including an engagement process with relevant stakeholders, are currently being worked out, he said in response to a question from Nee Soon GRC Member of Parliament (MP) Louis Ng.

“This is part of Singapore’s broader commitment to tackle the illegal ivory trade and to support elephant conservation,” Dr Koh said.

The commercial import and export of ivory has been banned in Singapore since 1990. Non-commercial trade, for example for museum display and research, is permitted with the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore’s approval.

In June last year, Singapore authorities crushed and burnt nearly 8,000kg of seized elephant ivory - estimated to be worth S$13 million - seized from illegal shipments.

It was the first time seized ivory had been destroyed in Singapore. Previous hauls were returned to the originating country, donated to museums or kept for education.

Senior Minister of State for National Development Desmond Lee said then that the public destruction of ivory sent a “strong message” that Singapore condemns illegal wildlife trade.

- CNA/cy


S'pore to ban sale of ivory here
NEO CHAI CHIN Today Online 1 Mar 17;

SINGAPORE — The sale of ivory here will be banned as part of Singapore’s commitment to tackle the illegal ivory trade and support elephant conservation, said Minister of State for National Development Koh Poh Koon on Wednesday (March 1).

The authorities will engage stakeholders and are working out details of the implementation, he told Parliament in response to a question from Nee Soon GRC Member of Parliament Louis Ng.

Dr Koh did not provide a timeframe for the ban on domestic trade to be introduced.

In the meantime, the buying and selling of ivory here is allowed. Since 1990, however, the commercial import and export of ivory has been banned, although non-commercial import and export – such as for museum display and research – is still allowed with the Agri-food and Veterinary Authority’s approval and documentation.

Singapore was recently flagged as a “country of primary concern” for its role as a transit point for illegal ivory trade from Africa to other Asian countries by wildlife trade monitoring network Traffic.

Through data from 2012 to 2014, Traffic placed Singapore in the same group as Malaysia, Malawi and Togo. It noted that the countries rarely made ivory seizures and were seldom implicated in seizures made by others.

But where there were seizures, the cases tended to involve large quantities. This group of countries had the greatest proportion of seizures that weighed 800kg or more, suggesting that the bulk of smuggled ivory was part of higher-level organised crime activity, said Traffic.

Singapore has handled 12 cases of illegal ivory import or transshipment in the past decade, with about 10 tonnes of ivory from countries such as Congo, Kenya, Nigeria and the United States seized.

Read more!

Water must be priced in full to reflect its true scarcity, says Masagos

Channel NewsAsia 1 Mar 17;

SINGAPORE: Water must be priced "fully" because in Singapore, it is unlike any other ordinary commodity, said Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Masagos Zulkifli in Parliament on Wednesday (Mar 1) in response to concerns raised about the water price hike announced last week.

"We subsidise housing, healthcare, education, but not water consumption," he noted. "Water is a strategic issue. It is a national security issue. We must price water fully."

He said that even though targeted financial assistance is given to households, water must be priced correctly.

"The consumer must feel the price of water, realise how valuable water is, every time he or she turns on the tap, right from the first drop."

The price of water should reflect its long-run marginal cost (LRMC), the minister said.

The Government had last decided to revise the water price substantially in 1997, to reflect its true scarcity value. “If we needed any additional water, where would it come from? How much would that additional litre cost? That is what we call the LRMC,” said Mr Masagos.

COSTS HAVE RISEN FOR THREE REASONS

Costs have gradually gone up, Mr Masagos pointed out, adding that at some point, a price revision becomes essential.

More desalination plants have to be built to meet water demand and the Government will build three within the next three years.

In 2005, the first-year price for water from Singapore's first desalination plant was S$0.78 per cubic metre. Now, the first-year price at the newest plant at Marina East was S$1.08 per cubic metre, which is a 40 per cent increase, explained Mr Masagos.

It is also costing more to build new and replacement pipes to deliver water, as Singapore becomes more urbanised, Mr Masagos said.

While tunnelling below roads to lay pipelines minimises inconvenience to road users and the public, it costs two-and-a-half times as much as the traditional method of laying pipes, he added.

Mr Masagos also said that PUB will also have to more than double the rate of renewal of old pipelines to minimise leaks and disruptions, from the current 20 kilometres per year to 50 kilometres per year.

In addition, effluent water, left over after a greater proportion of used water is reclaimed for NEWater, becomes more concentrated and more difficult and costly to treat, he said.

But the Government has been able to keep down the cost of water and hold water prices unchanged for 17 years, as a result of research and development leading to NEWater, and advancements in desalination technology which saw the move from multi-stage flash distillation to membranes, Mr Masagos added.

“The truth is this - we are still a water-stressed nation,” he said. “Singapore was ranked first among countries with the greatest risk of high water stress in 2040, according to the World Resources Institute.”

Water conservation was something earlier generations of Singaporeans had internalised. Singaporeans put up with water rationing, supported water saving campaigns and paid the cost of cleaning up rivers, said Mr Masagos.

“That was how water conservation became our DNA,” he added.

In fact, a caller on 938LIVE's discussion on water was very upset when his colleague used the shower at work for half an hour, Mr Masagos said. "He said, 'You don't do this at home. So why do it at work? Because it's free?'"

This attitude of always wanting to conserve water, even when it comes free, is the attitude to take moving forward, said Mr Masagos.

WATER WILL STILL BE AFFORDABLE

Water will still be affordable overall, Mr Masagos stated. It will remain about 1 per cent of household income, and 75 per cent of businesses will see an increase of less than S$25 per month in water bills.

Mr Masagos added that Malaysia's Linggiu Reservoir is operating at a level below what Singapore is comfortable with and Singapore cannot discount the possibility that dry weather would persist or worsen in future when climate change becomes pronounced.

“Johor is also drawing water from the Johor River and Singapore is discussing this with Malaysia to ensure that Johor’s actions do not compromise our ability to draw the 250 million gallons per day that Singapore is entitled to from the Johor River under the 1962 Water Agreement,” he said.

- CNA/sl


Counter-intuitive to give rebates for saving water: Masagos
The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources was responding to questions by Workers’ Party MP Pritam Singh on the water price hike.
Justin Ong Channel NewsAsia 1 Mar 17;

SINGAPORE: Handing out rebates to people who save water would be “counter-intuitive” to ensuring they pay for the cost of producing water, said Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Masagos Zulkifli‎ on Wednesday (Mar 1).

“To give back that cost means we are subsidising the use of water,” he explained. “Any way we change the (price) structure of water that we have today either involves cost or is counter-intuitive to trying to promote the conservation of water.”

Mr Masagos was responding to a point made by opposition Workers’ Party (WP) Member of Parliament (MP) Pritam Singh against the 30 per cent water price hike announced as part of Budget 2017 last week.

The day before, Mr Singh had also asked for a more detailed breakdown from the Government on its water pricing methods, while WP’s Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPs) Dennis Tan and Daniel Goh both highlighted the impact the water price hike could have on the cost of living in Singapore.

On Wednesday, fellow WP MP Png Eng Huat asked about the scale of losses made supplying water. “If this Government is bent on raising the price of an essential commodity by 30 per cent, it is certainly the right time to open the books to Singaporeans to justify the increase,” he said.

In response, Mr Masagos said: “We are unable to provide details of computation because of commercial sensitivities. We still need to build more desalination plants and NEWater plants. As more desalination, NEWater and water reclamation plants are yet to be built or expanded, revealing the specifics … could prejudice future bids.”

He assured the House that the cost reflected the best the market could offer and added that technology was also taken into account in the latest review.

“Technologically, we have squeezed everything we can from the current water processing technology,” said Mr Masagos. “It will take several more years to achieve the next breakthrough and bring it to a deployable scale.”

On the magnitude of the increase, he said: “Thirty per cent price revision translates to less than a dollar a day for 75 per cent of our businesses; and still within 1 per cent of household income for water expenses."

“I am heartened that some businesses have taken this increase in context and have explicitly said that they would not increase prices,” Mr Masagos added.

SECURING WATER SUPPLY

Mr Singh further sought a number of clarifications after Mr Masagos’ speech, one of which was on how PUB assesses when to increase the price of water.

“On the issue of books in PUB, it is very complicated for me to attempt to simplify what the numbers really mean,” said Mr Masagos. “Our books are in accruals; our budget is in cash, and I have to reconcile them.”

“I will ask the Minister for Finance to look at the whole-of-government approach in funding our water infrastructure. That makes more sense. Some parts are Government-funded, some parts are PUB-funded. It does not add up if we look at each book separately.”

Mr Singh also asked if PUB would consider deepening local reservoirs to increase the local catchment.

Said Mr Masagos: “Unfortunately, the answer is not as simple as the question. Currently, studies show there’s a particular yield from a reservoir if you leave it as it is, and there’s a risk this yield can be reduced if you start disturbing the bottom of the reservoir.

“So we don’t want to do something adversely affecting the yield of the reservoir … I’ve asked our experts to study this further … But right now, the prospects are not fantastic.”

Mr Masagos also said that at present, there was no need to directly supply NEWater to homes to save costs.

“Theoretically we can, but we don’t have to right now and certainly when we need to, we have to put the right processes to ensure … it is safe for our house to drink from end to end,” he explained.

Mr Singh had also asked if there would be another price hike if water levels in Malaysia's Linggiu Reservoir dropped to zero.

“The price of water as it stands today … is the price of producing the next drop of water - if for whatever reason the next drop of water that we need to draw will be coming from desalination or NEWater, it’s already priced in,” said Mr Masagos.

“The problem is not the price. The problem is what can we do to prevent that from happening. It’s not just an issue of supply, it’s a very complicated issue should that situation ever occur to us."

- CNA/jo


Water is 'existential' issue for Singapore: Chan Chun Sing
Channel NewsAsia 1 Mar 17;

SINGAPORE: Singapore must never forget that water is an existential issue for the country, needed for its survival, said Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office Chan Chun Sing in Parliament on Wednesday (Mar 1).

He spent a good part of his speech addressing the subject of water prices, which will go up by 30 per cent over two years, as announced in Budget 2017.

“I can understand the angst of our people with the water price increase … how it will feed through to the cost of living,” said Mr Chan.

But Singaporeans must also agree that “water is existential”, said Mr Chan, adding that this has been the case since 1965 when Singapore became independent. “We have to start from this basic premise,” he told the House.

Mr Chan, who is also the labour chief, laid out the challenges that Singapore faces in managing water resources.

Demand for water has gone up, even as Singapore builds more reservoirs, desalination and NEWater plants.

He pointed out that the country now has 17 reservoirs, up from the original three - MacRitchie, Seletar and Pierce - and two-thirds of Singapore’s entire land is made up of water catchment areas. “I dare say no other country has planned it (as) such, no other city has planned it (as) such."

Mr Chan acknowledged that technology has helped Singapore meet some of its water demand, but its people still need to be prudent in using the resource, he said. “How many more desalination plants and NEWater plants must we build in order for water to never be a weapon pointing at our head?” he put to members of the House.

On the supply from Johor’s Linggiu Reservoir, Mr Chan warned that water needs of people in the southern Malaysian state are also increasing. They are also extracting water upstream of Linggiu Reservoir, said the minister. “That affects our yield but we want to and we are committed to work with the Malaysian and Johor government, the Johor authorities to see how we can develop the water system for both the benefit of Malaysia and Singapore.”

MORE AWARENESS ON CHALLENGES NEEDED

During the Budget debate which kicked off on Tuesday, some Members of Parliament had raised concerns over the timing of the water price hikes and their impact on the cost of living.

In response to those concerns, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Masagos Zulkifli explained earlier on Wednesday that the costs of producing water have gone up for three reasons, and that the Government decided to revise water prices to "reflect its true scarcity value".

What the debate has shown is that more needs to be done “to socialise our people to the challenges that we are facing on water front”, said Mr Chan.

“The fact that we have such an intense discussion reflects that we have left this issue off our nation's psyche for too long.”

The minister stressed that there is never an easy way to manage the issue of price hikes but pointed out that a 30 per cent increase, after 17 years without any hikes, translates to an increase of about 1.6 per cent a year.

He said: “We can do this every year, we can do this every five years, we can do this every 10 years but regardless of which way we choose, we have to make sure we never forget that water is existential.”

Ultimately, he said the Government needs to be responsible in taking care of not only the short-term needs but also address future challenges.

“A responsible Government is not one which will raise the price and not take greater care of the poor,” said Mr Chan. “A responsible Government is one who knows what is not sustainable and puts a stop to it now.”

- CNA/gs


Water must be priced fully as it’s a matter of national security, says Masagos
SIAU MING EN Today Online 1 Mar 17;

SINGAPORE — While housing, healthcare and education are subsidised in Singapore, water has to be priced fully as it is a matter of national security, and consumers “must feel the price of water” to realise its value, said Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Masagos Zulkifli on Wednesday (March 1).

But even with the impending 30 per cent hike in water prices, the price of water here will fall short of the long-run marginal cost (LRMC) — which is the increase in cost over the long run from rising production, said Mr Masagos, who was speaking in Parliament during the debate on the Budget statement.

Speaking a day after Members of Parliament, including those from the Workers’ Party, had questioned the timing and need for the price hike, he noted that water is unlike any other ordinary commodity in Singapore.

“Water is a strategic issue. It is a national security (issue). We must price water fully … The consumer must realise how valuable water is to us in Singapore every time he or she turns on the tap — right from the first drop,” said Mr Masagos.

“With the 30 per cent increase that we have announced, the price will be close to, though slightly lower than, the price of the next drop or LRMC today. This is the best way to emphasise the scarcity value of water.”

Mr Masagos also outlined how the cost of water has gradually gone up over the years, but said that details of how the LRMC was computed cannot be revealed.

Revealing these specifics could prejudice future bids for desalination, NEWater and water reclamation plants that have yet to be built or expanded, he explained.

The LRMC of water comes from the costs of NEWater and desalination. Between the two, Singapore will have to depend more on desalination to meet increasing water demands, as there is a limit to recycling used water in the NEWater plants.

Hence, three more desalination plants will be built within the next three years.

Meanwhile, as the proportion of water being reclaimed for NEWater increases, effluent or waste water becomes more concentrated, making it difficult and costly to treat.

It also costs more to build new and replacement pipes to deliver water.

Mr Masagos noted that treated water from Singapore’s latest desalination plant at Marina East costs S$1.08 per cubic metre for the first year, which is about 40 per cent more than the corresponding price at Singapore’s first desalination plant, Singspring, in its first year.

The last revision in water prices was between 1997 and 2000, to reflect water’s true scarcity value. Back in 1997, there were elements in Malaysia threatening to block the supply of water from Johor, while Singapore was embarking on desalination to secure its water supply.

“There was no way for the Government then to move the water price to the true cost of the next litre — the price of desalination — so it was moved instead, in steps, over the period 1997 to 2000, to today’s water price,” said Mr Masagos.

He also stressed that, for three-quarters of the businesses here, the 30 per cent increase in water prices translates to an increase of less than S$25 a month in water bills.

Overall, water will still be affordable because it will remain at about 1 per cent of the household income.

Responding to a slew of supplementary questions from Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied GRC), Mr Masagos said providing rebates to those who save water is “counter-intuitive” to getting Singaporeans to pay for the cost of producing water. “To give back that cost means we are subsidising the use of water,” he said.

Mr Seah Kian Peng (Marine Parade GRC), meanwhile, also spoke against detractors who “lost no time in politicising” the water price hike.

The accusation that the Government is “making money off water” cannot be further from the truth, he said, citing 2012 figures showing that the authorities subsidised at least 30 per cent of water in Singapore, in simple terms.


Raft of water-saving events in the pipeline
FARIS MOKHTAR Today Online 1 Mar 17;

SINGAPORE — Ahead of a water price hike later this year, a stream of activities is in the pipeline to drive home the water conservation message, including a water-rationing exercise for over 14,000 students, a campaign to encourage the drinking of tap water, and community activities to encourage Singaporeans to walk the talk in treasuring the resource.

The month-long lineup of events is being held in conjunction with the Singapore World Water Day (SWWD), which will be launched by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean on Saturday (March 4).

This year’s water-rationing exercises will see 45 schools — 34 pre-schools, one junior college and ten primary and secondary schools — coming onboard, in hopes that water conservation habits will take among the young. Only five schools took part last year.

In some schools, students would not have access to water supply from taps or water coolers between one to four hours for a day. They are required to bring bottled water for drinking, washing their hands, and brushing their teeth.

From this month, food establishments can put up a “Drink Tap Water” label to inform consumers that they will be serving tap water. This is to highlight that the country’s tap water is of good drinking quality, and that the public should treasure this limited resource.

A “Community Meter” initiative will also be launched to measure contributions to the water cause. For sharing water conservation tips on social media or participating in SWWD events, “drops of water” will be accumulated in the Community Meter, and tracked live on the SWWD website. Participants can earn rewards such as free entry to ActiveSG’s 23 swimming pools island-wide.

PUB also announced that from next month, a four-tick rating for washing machines will be introduced under the Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme, a grading system for the water efficiency level of a product.

Last month, Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat announced a 30 per cent hike in water prices when he delivered the Budget statement, the first price adjustment in 17 years. Recently, record low water levels in the Linggiu Reservoir in Johor, which allows Singapore to draw water more reliably from the Johor River, have also raised the spectre of a disruption in water supply.

The first water-rationing exercise was conducted on Wednesday at Woodgrove Secondary School in Woodlands, where Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Masagos Zulkifli observed students carrying pails of water from a collection point to the canteen to wash their hands.

In a Facebook post, Mr Masagos noted that the last nationwide water-rationing exercise was held in 1964 due to a drought, and said that such exercises are important especially for the younger generation who have never experienced water-rationing, and “to remind ourselves that we should not take water for granted”.

At NurtureStars – one of the participating pre-schools – water supply at its six branches would be turned off for a day between 9am to 1pm. They would be taught how to efficiently use the two bottles of 1.5 litres of water they are required to bring to school.

“In pre-schools, students wash their hands quite often because hygiene is very important. But at the same time, we don’t want them to take water for granted. We want them to understand that it’s a precious resource,” the pre-school’s general manager Ng Kuan Wei said.

Woodgrove Secondary School student Teo Zhan Yue, 15, said having watched documentaries on how less developed countries struggled to obtain clean water made him realise the importance of having clean water and the need to conserve it. And he also tried to educate his younger sisters to adopt water conservation habits such as turning off the taps while brushing their teeth and taking shorter showers.

“I would previously complain to my mother about their poor habits but decided to take the approach where I myself nag and irritate them to until they get the message,” chuckled Zhan Yue, a Secondary Three student.

Meanwhile, Mr Chris Hooi, executive director of Dragon Phoenix restaurant, said that he would support the campaign to drink tap water, but he would continue to serve only bottled water at his restaurant. “My customers generally prefer bottled water and they’ll either order still or sparkling water. Plus, we’re able to charge for this,” he said.


Masagos: Consumers must feel the full price of water
Ronald loh, THE NEW PAPERAsiaOne 2 Mar 17;

Environment Minister says water is a "national security issue"

Water prices were increased substantially to reflect its true scarcity value, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources Masagos Zulkifli told Parliament yesterday.

As MPs debated the Budget for the second day, he addressed the hot topic of the tariff hike announced by Finance Minister Heng Swee Keaton Feb 20.

Mr Heng had said the price of water will go up - the first increase in 17 years - by 30 per cent in two phases, starting from July 1, to pay for more costly methods of obtaining fresh water from seawater and get people to conserve water.

On Tuesday, several MPs raised concerns that the price hike could hit smaller businesses with higher costs.

Yesterday, Mr Masagos said water is unlike any other ordinary commodity in Singapore.

"Water is a strategic issue. It is a national security issue. We must price water fully," he said.

"The consumer must feel the full price of water and realise how valuable and precious it is, every time he or she turns on the tap, right from the first drop."

He explained that water costs have also gone up.

For example, the first-year price of desalination for Singapore's first plant - the SingSpring Desalination Plant - in 2005 was 78 cents per cubic metre (m3), but the first-year price for the latest plant at Marina East was $1.08 per m3, about 40 per cent more.

Mr Masagos said there is a limit to recycling water, hence the need to rely on desalination plants, of which three more will be built in the next three years.

He also said PUB is more than doubling the rate of renewal for old pipelines from the current 20km per year, to 50km per year, to minimise disruptions.

This - coupled with the depletion of Johor's Linggiu Reservoir, which Singapore draws water from - means it was urgent that policies and the right pricing are in place to moderate demand to ensure a secure water supply.

Mr Masagos said awarding rebates to those who save water would be counter-intuitive to ensuring they pay for the cost of producing water.

"To give back that cost means we are subsidising the use of water. Any way we change the structure of water that we have today either involves cost or is counter-intuitive to trying to promote the conservation of water," he said.

Hougang MP Png Eng Huat had earlier called the quantum of increase "puzzling" and for the Government to open its books to justify the increase.

But Mr Masagos said he was unable to provide details of the computation because of commercial sensitivities.

Aljunied GRC MP Pritam Singh asked if PUB would consider deepening local reservoirs to increase the local catchment.

Mr Masagos said the answer was not as simple, as studies show that a reservoir's yield can be reduced if the bottom of the reservoir is disturbed.

But he said water prices will remain affordable, with 75 per cent of businesses seeing a hike of less than $25 a month.

One- and two-room HDB households will not see any rise on average, while other HDB households will see monthly bills go up by $2 to $11 a month.

"Water will still be affordable. It will still remain within 1 per cent of household income," Mr Masagos said.


Price hike debate should remind S’poreans of water’s importance: PM
Today Online 3 Mar 17;

SINGAPORE — Addressing a growing public debate about the Government’s move to raise water prices by 30 per cent, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat said the Republic has to price water properly in order to be able to continue investing in new infrastructure that would maintain a reliable supply.

In a Facebook post on Thursday (March 2), Mr Lee reiterated comments by several ministers in recent days that water is a “strategic resource, and a matter of national security” for Singapore.

“The Pioneer Generation knew this. So do the generations of servicemen and women who have defended Singapore,” he added. “In this situation, we have to price water properly. Then every time we turn on the tap, we are conscious of how precious each drop is.”

As Singapore builds more NEWater and desalination plants to meet its needs, the cost of producing water has gone up, and “tariffs must rise”, Mr Lee noted.

He urged Singaporeans to see the price hike in perspective, saying many households will get additional rebates to help cope while the water bills for some 75 per cent of businesses will go up by less than S$1 a day.

“I hope this public debate reminds us how important and valuable water is, and how we can all help to conserve water, so that we always have enough water in Singapore,” he added.

Mr Heng, who announced the price hike last month, struck a similar note as he responded to a slew of questions and comments by Members of Parliament who spoke on the issue during this week’s debate on the Budget statement.

Among them were Workers’ Party MPs, who sought more clarity on how the quantum of increase was determined, and the timing of the hike.

On Thursday, Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC) pointed out that the reasons for the water price hike so far were long-standing ones, but water prices did not change for 17 years.

Moreover, the impending carbon tax has a two-year lead time for implementation, but no announcement was made two years in advance for the water price hike, she pointed out, adding that perhaps July 2015 — two months before the General Election was held — was not a good time for the announcement.

Mr Heng said the carbon tax is new and details have to be studied carefully.

Fundamentally, the point is whether Ms Lim agreed on water’s strategic significance, he added.

Mr Heng also said that the cornerstone of Singapore’s water policy is in pricing the resource on sound economic principles to reflect its long run marginal cost.

Currently, the Government spends more than it collects on the water system, with the PUB’s revenue from users just enough to cover operational costs and the depreciation of water works, pipelines and other related plants, Mr Heng added.

The imbalance is set to get worse over the next five years as the PUB embarks on new multi-billion-dollar water infrastructure projects, such as sewerage networks and deep tunnel systems.

“Singaporeans have enjoyed uninterrupted and high quality drinking water through rainy weather and droughts alike,” Mr Heng said.

“This is not mere good fortune or our birthright. Rather it is the result of long term planning, can do attitude, innovation and sound policy.”


Water price hike: Govt has to do 'right, responsible thing' in sending price signal, says Heng Swee Keat
The Finance Minister rounds off three days of Budget 2017 debates by addressing the concerns raised on the water price hike and Government expenditure.
Justin Ong Channel NewsAsia 2 Mar 17;

SINGAPORE: The Government has to do the "right and responsible thing" when it comes to sending the right price signal on water consumption, Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat said on Thursday (Mar 2) in response to questions from the Workers’ Party (WP) on the timing of the 30 per cent increase announced at Budget 2017 last week.

WP members had raised this repeatedly in three days of debate and Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Leon Perera sought clarification again after Mr Heng’s round-up speech.

“The Government did have the option of either pre-announcing and/or staggering or deferring (the price increase),” said Mr Perera. “Given the Government has shared that the reasons behind this are not political, can the minister help Singaporeans understand a little better what are the non-political reasons?”

Said Mr Heng: "The fact is, first and foremost, do we agree that the price signal is important so that consumers know what the actual cost of the resource is, and therefore can then take action to mitigate use?”

“If the answer is yes, then there’s never a good time. Because I don’t think any finance minister finds it a popular thing to come here and say, ‘I’m going to increase this and increase that’. I don’t take great joy out of announcing all these increases.”

“But… The right and responsible thing is to make sure the correct price feeds through to the economy early enough, and that if we do things early, often we also have the ability to provide the mitigation support package,” he added. “We’ve got to make sure we do things correctly.”

CARBON VS WATER?

Earlier, WP chair and Aljunied GRC MP Sylvia Lim said the reasons for the water price hike provided by Environment and Water Resources Minister Masagos Zulkifli were “longstanding” and “did not come up suddenly”.

“The last 17 years, the price has been unchanged. Did it not cross the Government’s mind before this year that it will want to raise the price of water?” she asked.

“By contrast, there is a two-year lead time for the impending carbon tax. Why was it not possible to prepare Singaporeans for an increase to take effect in July, with an announcement similarly two years ahead of time? Perhaps July 2015 was not a good time to make such an announcement,” she said, alluding to the general election in 2015.

Mr Heng replied: “The carbon tax is new and details have to be carefully studied. But the more fundamental point is whether Ms Lim agrees that water is of strategic significance and that we each should do our part.”

MP Christopher de Souza, who sits on the Estimates Committee, said the comparison between the carbon tax and water price hike was not a fair one, and that it was like comparing "chalk and cheese".

“They are completely different subjects. For carbon tax, you’ve got to look at our how commitment is corralled within the overarching Paris Agreement and how it impacts all members who’ve ratified that and therefore a longer runway is completely justifiable,” he said.

“Versus … a situation where water is precious, a commodity, scarce and we have to act promptly.”

REVIEWING GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE

Ms Lim also asked whether the Government had done adequate reviews of past and current initiatives, to weed out wasteful or ineffective expenditures.

She highlighted that there had been previous initiatives similar to the Committee on the Future Economy (CFE). “In 2010, the Economic Strategies Committee’s (ESC) aim was to grow productivity by two to three percent yearly over a decade. Which should bring us to a 30 per cent productivity increase by 2019,” said Ms Lim.

“However, after seven years, productivity improvements are way off target and weak in domestically-oriented sectors. What lessons have we drawn from here? And can these be applied to CFE strategies?”

Ms Lim then illustrated her point using the Productivity and Innovation Credit (PIC) scheme.

"The PIC is a huge scheme with the Government putting (in) billions of public funds. Do we know whether the results were worth the huge cost? As it turns out millions of dollars were also sucked out of the system through fraudulent or dubious PIC claims. What lessons have we learnt from this? We now read that the SkillsFuture scheme - launched just last year - has also been subjected to a potential fraud of S$2.2 million already paid out."

“We’ve seen the productivity data that seems to be very mixed and weak in domestic sectors for the last couple of years. Can the minister elaborate further on whether there has been any publicly published Government report that shows the effect of PIC schemes on productivity?” she asked.

“In terms of productivity growth, over the period from 2011 to 2016 it has been above 2 per cent and within range of what ESC has set out to do,” said Mr Heng. “So these measures, in terms of productivity numbers, yes, have achieved that sort of outcome.

“That is why last year I spoke about why we need to move on to take more targeted measures, because we ought to engage in the next phase.”

DERIVING REVENUE SOURCES

Ms Lim further raised a point on whether the Government had "completely recognised its sources of revenue".

She said: “10 years ago, revenue from land sales was in the region of S$4 billion to S$5 billion. Today, we see revised land sales figures for this financial year to be S$11.8 billion, and projected for the coming year to be S$8.2 billion.”

“Tapping on land sales to fund annual budgets is internationally accepted and practiced by other governments,” said Ms Lim. “As our expenditures are expected to rise in coming years, is it not reasonable to seriously think about utilising land sales revenue to fund the Budget, and reduce the need to tax people further?

Mr Heng, however, explained that proceeds from land sales go into past reserves. “It’s because of this prudence that we are able to build up our reserves and we are now drawing a part of its returns for expenditure,” he said. “We must stay disciplined in spending returns of our reserves, so they remain a stable and sustainable source of revenue over the long-term.”

- CNA/jo


Water fees 'cover only PUB ops and asset depreciation'
Chong Zi Liang AsiaOne 3 Mar 17;

The money that people pay for using water is enough to cover only the operations of national water agency PUB and the depreciation of its water works, pipelines and water reclamation plants, Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat said yesterday.

The annual surpluses PUB gets are transferred to its reserves to finance its plants and equipment, he told the House, addressing the issue of the water price hike that surfaced throughout the Budget debate.

"The Government pays for part of the total cost of securing a safe and clean supply of water for our people and businesses," he added, as he underlined the strategic value of water and updated members on plans for investments in the water system.

PUB intends to invest $4 billion on additional water infrastructure in the next five years.

The sewerage network will be improved as well.

A deep tunnel sewerage system, costing more than $4 billion, will be completed in 2025.

Another $3 billion will be spent on other sewerage network projects, and to strengthen the resilience of the water supply, in the next five years.

These expenses exceed the revenue from the water conservation tax, which is expected to be about $1.6 billion in the five-year period, he added.

Over the past three days, MPs had voiced residents' concerns that business and living costs were expected to go up with the 30 per cent hike in water price, which will take effect in two phases, starting in July this year.

Others, however, stressed that water is a precious resource as Singapore's existence hinges on it, and that the price of water should reflect its value.

"Water sufficiency is a matter of national survival," Mr Heng said, as he noted how founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew "obsessed over water since the Separation Agreement".

"Securing a sustainable water supply for Singapore has been an all- consuming pursuit of the Government since Independence. We lodged our water agreements with the United Nations, invested in a strong defence force and developed strong capabilities in water technologies," he added.

"Singaporeans have enjoyed uninterrupted and high-quality drinking water through rainy weather and droughts alike. This is not mere good fortune or our birthright. Rather, it is the result of long-term planning, a can-do attitude, innovation and sound policy," he said.

Mr Heng reiterated a point Environment and Water Resources Minister Masagos Zulkifli made on Tuesday, that the cornerstone of Singapore's policy on water is pricing it on sound economic principles to reflect its "long-run marginal cost" - that is, the cost of supplying the next available drop of water, which is likely to come from Newater and desalination plants.

"This ensures that users will conserve water, and we can make timely investments in the water system," he said.

Yesterday, Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC) of the Workers' Party asked why a proposed carbon tax will be implemented only in 2019, but Singaporeans were not given a similar two-year notice for the increase in water price.

Mr Heng said the carbon tax is new and it will take time to study carefully the details before rolling it out.

"A more fundamental point is whether Ms Lim agrees that water is of strategic significance and that we should each do our part," he added.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong joined the discussion on the water price hike with a Facebook post yesterday, saying he hoped the debate in Parliament on the issue will remind Singaporeans of the value of water:

"The water price increase has triggered sharp reactions from Singaporeans. Two ministers - Chan Chun Sing and Masagos Zulkifli - spoke about this in Parliament yesterday(Wednesday).

They explained why water is an existential issue for Singapore, and why this price increase is unavoidable.

Singapore is an island, yet we are one of the most water-stressed countries in the world.

We have enough water today only because of our unremitting efforts since independence. For us, water will always be a strategic resource, and a matter of national security.

The Pioneer Generation knew this. So do the generations of servicemen and women who have defended Singapore.

In this situation, we have to price water properly.

Then every time we turn on the tap, we are conscious of how precious each drop is.

We last revised water prices in 1997 - a long time ago. Since then, we have developed Newater.

We have also invested in desalination, which is cheaper than before but still expensive.

We need to build more Newater and desalination plants.

That is why the cost of producing water has gone up, and tariffs must rise.

We should see the 30 per cent increase in perspective.

Many households will get additional U-Save rebates.

So one- and two-room HDB households will not see any nett increase at all.

For most other HDB flats, the nett increase will only be between $2 and $11 per month.

For three-quarters of businesses, water bills will go up by less than a $1 per day ($25 per month). Minister Masagos shared these in his speech.

I hope this public debate reminds us how important and valuable water is, and how we can all help to conserve water, so that we always have enough water in Singapore."

5 KEY QUESTIONS ON WATER

1. WHY MUST THE PRICE OF WATER RISE?

The price of water has to reflect what is called the long-run marginal cost (LRMC) - that is, the cost of supplying the next available drop of water.

This is likely to come from Newater and desalination plants.

As there is a limit to recycling used water in Newater plants, three desalination plants are being built within the next three years.

As more used water is reclaimed for Newater, the liquid waste is more difficult and costly to treat.

Building pipes to deliver water has also become pricier, as Singapore becomes more built up.

Pricing water right will ensure users conserve it, and enable investments in water infrastructure.

2. WHY HIKE THE PRICE NOW?

The price of water has not gone up in 17 years, since 2000. There is never a good time to raise prices, noted Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat.

But the costs of producing water are rising. PUB plans to invest $4 billion in additional water infrastructure over the next five years.

The Government is also making investments in the sewerage network.

This includes the Deep Tunnel Sewerage System, which will be ready in 2025 and will cost more than $4 billion.

Another $3 billion will also be spent on other sewerage network projects, and to strengthen the resilience of the island's water supply.

Also, water levels in Johor's Linggiu Reservoir, from which Singapore draws its water, have been falling in recent years, and climate change could worsen matters.

3. HOW DID 30 PER CENT FIGURE COME ABOUT?

The Government still needs to build more desalination plants and Newater plants.

So details on the costs involved in aspects of water production are commercially sensitive, and revealing specifics could prejudice future bids.

But Environment and Water Resources Minister Masagos Zulkifli told MPs that even with the 30 per cent hike, the price of water would be below cost.

4. HASN'T TECHNOLOGY HELPED?

Technologically, Singapore has squeezed everything it can from the current water processing technology.

It will take several more years to achieve the next breakthrough and bring it to a deployable scale.

5. WOULDN'T THERE BE A KNOCK-ON EFFECT ON OTHER COSTS?

The price hike translates into 75 per cent of businesses seeing an increase of less than $25 per month in water bills - or less than $1 a day.

Some businesses have said they will not increase prices.

Extra U-Save rebates for households means those in one- and two-room HDB flats will not see any increase on average.

For other HDB flat types, monthly water bills will go up by between $2 and $11 per month.

Overall, spending on water will remain at about 1 per cent of household income for most families.

Read more!

Thailand: Can Bangkok turn back the rising tide and stop sinking?

Pichayada Promchertchoo Channel NewsAsia 1 Mar 17;

BANGKOK: The clock is ticking for Bangkok. Before it turns 250 years old in 2032, the city could have sunk under water.

Although the problem has been developing for years, with doomsday warnings from academics and researchers, little action has been taken. Many members of the public seem oblivious to the risks and officials cannot settle on a strategy.

“The problem is slow and silent. Many people don’t believe Bangkok will ever be under water. Some think others will take care of it. And that’s a dangerous thought,” said Ponlawat Buasri, a Thai architect who rose to fame after designing Wetropolis, a flood-resistant community that could provide a blueprint for Bangkok to keep its head above water.

Under his vision, low-lying communities would be shrunk and then elevated 5 metres above water, avoiding the problems of flooding, rising sea levels and land subsidence. Underneath, restored mangrove forests would absorb carbon dioxide, filter water and provide residents with green open space, as the community thrives without fear of being submerged.

While the design is arguably not wholly practical for a massive city like Bangkok, it hit the headlines when it came out in 2011 - the same year Thailand was inundated by one of the worst floods in its history. More than 800 people were killed and 12 million others affected. Bangkok remained underwater for months and the Thai economy suffered a US$40.7 billion loss.

Since then, the floods have subsided, apparently along with interest in developing a solution to a problem that is not going to go away.

“Not so many people think it’s a huge problem. They believe someone will find a solution. But have they ever thought how long our flood defence systems can last or if the city would last forever?” Ponlawat said.

But experts say action is needed – and soon.

A SINKING TRUTH

Bangkok is facing a double whammy of challenges.

By the end of this century, the mean sea level is predicted to rise by almost one metre, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

And while the waters rise, the city is relentlessly sinking further, accelerating the process of living space disappearing.

Currently, Bangkok is only 0.5-2 metres above the water. The metropolitan area is sitting precariously on what was once marshland. That means the city is resting on a layer of soft clay that is highly compressible. Besides the natural land subsidence, decades of excessive groundwater pumping and rapid development have put more pressure on the foundation. Nearly 5,000 tall buildings, nine million vehicles, roads and rail systems have contributed to the problem.

A study by Thailand’s National Reform Council in 2015 showed Bangkok risks being submerged in less than 15 years.

“Much of Bangkok is already lower than the sea level. Every year, it sinks by 1-2 centimetres, and some areas by even more. But that doesn’t mean Bangkok is submerged,” said Dr Anond Snidvongs from Geo-Informatics and Space Technology Development Agency (GISTDA), a governmental organisation that monitors floods and land subsidence in Thailand. “There are mechanisms that can help prevent that.”

However, while there are solutions that can help stem the decline, implementing them brings other problems, such as who will pay and what is the fallout outside Bangkok?

“To protect Bangkok from being submerged, there are costs. Costs aren't just financial but also the impact on other provinces. Floodwater has to go somewhere. So what are we going to do with affected people? And will everyone in Thailand bear the costs or just Bangkokians?” said Dr Anond.

GROW SMARTLY

The irony is that Bangkok would benefit from more water, if it could be diverted to the right place. The clay on which the city sits needs to retain moisture, otherwise it dries out, becoming more susceptible to subsidence. This results in the city sinking faster.

Groundwater is needed to allow the clay to retain its supportive qualities, but Bangkok’s heavily concreted urban sprawl prevents it from seeping through to the right areas. Instead, it floods the city or flows through to rivers and canals, putting further pressure on rising water levels.

“So you have to fix the problem there because water flows through layers of soil. We have to refill the right place,” said Dr Royol Chitradon, a water expert and director of the Hydro and Agro Informatics Institute (HAII).

Already, efforts have been made to rescue the sinking capital, including a law on groundwater pumping. In Bangkok, it is prohibited to extract groundwater without permission from the Groundwater Resources Department, except areas where water supply is not available.

At the same time, the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) is reaching out to residents for extra help with flood prevention. Landowners are encouraged to install rainwater tanks in exchange for benefits for their construction.

Deputy Permanent Secretary of the BMA Kriengpol Padhanarath said that such simple measures can be helpful: "If the land owner can install a rainwater tank that can store 1 cubic metre of rainwater or more, he'll be able to construct a building that is larger than what is required by the law."

But according to some analysts, such strategies present fundamental risks, because they are not permanent solutions to the problems that Bangkok faces. And, some say, they create even more problems because new construction puts more pressure on the city’s clay support and adds more barriers to groundwater seeping through to where it is needed.

TAKE LESS, GIVE MORE

As such, for Bangkok to survive, a total rethink may be needed. Which is why the designer of Wetropolis is hopeful that his ideas, or other radical suggestions, could gain momentum.

“Wetropolis reminds people that Bangkok is located on problems. It won’t be submerged all of a sudden but it will begin to malfunction little by little. One day, when we can’t repair it anymore, we’ll realise we have a problem but won’t know how to deal with it,” Ponlawat said.

If action is not taken, the inevitable will happen.

“One day Bangkok will be under water.”

Read more!

Australia: Seals at tourism hotspot suffering slow and painful deaths caused by helium balloons

Nicole Asher ABC 23 Feb 17;

Helium balloons are killing wildlife at one of Victoria's most popular nature tourism destinations.

An Australian fur seal is the latest animal to be saved from a painful death caused by a burst balloon.

Researchers at Phillip Island are reporting that an increasing number of birds and animals are ingesting, or becoming tangled in, the remnants of burst helium balloons.

A young fur seal was saved by researchers this week after it was discovered with balloon ribbon wrapped around its neck.

Without intervention, the seal would have suffered and died a slow death while it grew with the ribbon cutting into its flesh.

The researchers said the birds and animals they saved were just the tip of the iceberg.

Phillip Island Nature Parks research manager Peter Dann said they did not know how many animals were falling victim to balloons and the ribbons, known as bands.

He said the seal rescued this week was one of the lucky ones.

"Our rangers managed to catch it and found that it had a balloon band wrapped around its neck several times; they found it was cutting into the animal's flesh," Dr Dann said.

"It would have died quite slowly in the long term if they hadn't been able to remove it, but now its prospects of recovery are extremely good.
"Birds too — short-tailed shearwaters, or mutton birds that Phillip Island's famous for, as well as penguins — are particularly prone to picking up things on the surface of the sea.

"They pick up these balloons and balloon bands and they end up bring them back and feeding them to their chicks."

When balloons fly, seabirds die

The Phillip Island Nature Reserve has joined forces with Zoos Victoria to launch a campaign called When Balloons Fly, Seabirds Die, encouraging people to stop releasing helium balloons.

Zoos Victoria chief executive Jenny Gray said released balloons often ended up in the ocean.

"Every day balloons are released or escape at outdoor events because people don't realise this is creating a very real threat to wildlife," Dr Gray said.

Dr Dann said the problem was growing around Phillip Island.

"We've had at least a dozen fur seals entangled with these balloons strings, or bands, in the last five years that we know of, that we've actually caught and removed the string from," he said.

"We're noticing on Phillip Island that we're getting more and more balloon bands turning up with exploded balloons on the end on the beaches.

"It would probably come as a surprise to many people that whey they celebrate some happy event by releasing balloons, there are consequences further down the line."

Read more!

Sand mining: the global environmental crisis you’ve probably never heard of

From Cambodia to California, industrial-scale sand mining is causing wildlife to die, local trade to wither and bridges to collapse. And booming urbanisation means the demand for this increasingly valuable resource is unlikely to let up
Vince Beiser The Guardian 27 Feb 17;

Times are good for Fey Wei Dong. A genial, middle-aged businessman based near Shanghai, China, Fey says he is raking in the equivalent of £180,000 a year from trading in the humblest of commodities: sand.

Fey often works in a fishing village on Poyang Lake, China’s biggest freshwater lake and a haven for millions of migratory birds and several endangered species. The village is little more than a tiny collection of ramshackle houses and battered wooden docks. It is dwarfed by a flotilla anchored just offshore, of colossal dredges and barges, hulking metal flatboats with cranes jutting from their decks. Fey comes here regularly to buy boatloads of raw sand dredged from Poyang’s bottom. He ships it 300 miles down the Yangtze River and resells it to builders in booming Shanghai who need it to make concrete.

The demand is voracious. The global urbanisation boom is devouring colossal amounts of sand – the key ingredient of concrete and asphalt. Shanghai, China’s financial centre, has exploded in the last 20 years. The city has added 7 million new residents since 2000, raising its population to more than 23 million. In the last decade, Shanghai has built more high-rises than there are in all of New York City, as well as countless miles of roads and other infrastructure. “My sand helped build Shanghai Pudong airport,” Fey brags.

Hundreds of dredgers may be on the lake on any given day, some the size of tipped-over apartment buildings. The biggest can haul in as much as 10,000 tonnes of sand an hour. A recent study estimates that 236m cubic metres of sand are taken out of the lake annually. That makes Poyang the biggest sand mine on the planet, far bigger than the three largest sand mines in the US combined. “I couldn’t believe it when we did the calculations,” says David Shankman, a University of Alabama geographer and one of the study’s authors.

All that dredging, researchers believe, is a key reason why the lake’s water level has dropped dramatically in recent years. So much sand has been scooped out, says Shankman – 30 times more than the amount that flows in from tributary rivers – that the lake’s outflow channel has been drastically deepened and widened, nearly doubling the amount of water that flows into the Yangtze. The lower water levels are translating into declines in water quality and supply to surrounding wetlands. It could be ruinous for the area’s inhabitants, both animal and human.

Poyang Lake, which sits in a verdant rural area best known for a waterfall in the nearby hills, is Asia’s largest winter destination for migratory birds. It hosts millions of cranes, geese and storks during the cold months – as well as several endangered and rare species. It is also one of the few remaining habitats for the endangered freshwater porpoise. Studies have found that the sediment stirred up and the noise generated by sand boats interfere with the porpoise’s vision and sonar so drastically they cannot find fish and shrimp to feed on. And there are fewer fish to be found in the first place, say locals.

“The boats are destroying our fishing areas,” says one wrinkled fisherwoman selling plastic bags of crayfish. The dredging destroys fish breeding grounds, muddies the water and tears up her nets. These days, she says, she’s lucky to make £1,200 a year.

“I’ve been fishing here for 30 years, and there are fewer and fewer fish,” says Tan Jung Hwa, another local fisherman. He’s taken to working part-time on the sand boats because he can’t earn enough otherwise.

Lake Poyang may be a unique place, but the damage being done there is not. All around the world, riverbeds and beaches are being stripped bare, and farmlands and forests torn up to get at the precious sand grains. It’s a worldwide crisis that nobody has heard about.

The main driver of this crisis is our era’s unprecedented urban growth. Cities are expanding at a pace and on a scale far greater than at any time in human history. The number of people living in urban areas has more than quadrupled since 1950, to about 4 billion today. More than half of the world’s people now live in cities – with another 2.5 billion to come in the next three decades, according to the UN.

All these new cities require mind-boggling amounts of sand. Just about every apartment block, skyscraper, office tower and shopping mall that gets built anywhere from Beijing to Lagos is made with concrete, which is essentially just sand and gravel glued together with cement. Every yard of asphalt road that connects those buildings is also made with sand. So is every window in every one of those buildings.

In India, the amount of construction sand used annually has more than tripled since 2000, and is still rising fast. There is so much demand for certain types of construction sand that Dubai, which sits on the edge of an enormous desert, imports sand from Australia.

China in particular is on a city-building spree that beggars anything the world has ever seen. Over half a billion Chinese now live in urban areas, triple the total of 60 years ago. That’s roughly equal to the populations of the US, Canada and Mexico combined. China is also home to the world’s biggest urban agglomeration: the Pearl River Delta, across from Hong Kong, bursting with somewhere between 42 and 60 million inhabitants. Even Nanchang, the unglamorous provincial city that is the nearest major urban area to Lake Poyang, is fringed with fast-growing forests of high-rise apartment blocks.

In the past few years, China has used more cement than the US used in the entire 20th century. Last year alone, the nation used enough construction sand to cover the entire state of New York an inch deep.

All that sand has to come from somewhere. In the region around Shanghai, it came until recently from the bed of the Yangtze River. That turned out to be a bad idea. By the late 1990s miners had pulled out so much that bridges were undermined, shipping was snarled, and 1,000ft swaths of riverbank collapsed.

Unnerved by the damage to a waterway that provides water to 400 million people, Chinese authorities banned sand mining on the Yangtze in 2000. That sent the miners swarming to Poyang Lake.

The boats used to dig up the sand are essentially gigantic floating platforms, fitted with two huge conveyor belts studded with buckets that haul up sand from the bottom of the lake. The sand is then transferred to transport ships. In one narrow part of the lake, dozens of dredgers extend from the shore in a line, leaving only a narrow passageway for a tugboat hauling a barge piled up with yellow sand.

“We used to make more money, but now there is too much competition,” complains a crew member aboard one of the dredgers. “There are too many people doing this job.”

Catastrophic damage

Sand mining is causing environmental damage worldwide. In some places locals dig out riverbanks with shovels and haul it away with pickup trucks or donkeys; in others multinational companies dredge it up with machinery. Everywhere, the process impacts its surroundings in ways that range from cosmetic to catastrophic.

In mid-January, just north of Monterey, California, several dozen cheering activists made an odd political statement: they dumped 200 pounds of bagged, store-bought sand onto a beach. They were returning the grains to where they had come from. The sand had originally been mined from that beach – a beach which, according to researchers, is gradually disappearing as a result.

“This is the fastest eroding shoreline in California,” says professor Ed Thornton, a retired coastal engineer with the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey who has been studying the impact of the mine for years and who spoke at the demonstration. “We’re losing eight acres a year of pristine shore, some of the most beautiful in the world. It’s because of sand mining.” (A spokesperson for Cemex, the company that operates the mine, says via email that Thornton’s conclusions “are based on what we believe to be erroneous, speculative data and unsound theory”.)

The beach is the only one in the US that is still being mined for construction sand. Cemex, a global construction firm based in Mexico, operates a dredger that sucks up an estimated 270,000 cubic metres of sand every year. For most of the 20th century there were many such sand mines along the California coast, but in the late 1980s the federal government shut them down due to the erosion being suffered by the Golden State’s famous beaches. The Cemex plant is still operating thanks to a legal loophole – it appears to sit above the mean high-tide line, putting it out of federal jurisdiction. But protesters want state authorities to step in.

Environmentalists in many places are similarly calling on their governments to rein in sand mining. In Northern Ireland, activists are trying to stop dredging in Lough Neagh, an important bird sanctuary. In southern England, developers want to dredge sand to expand the port of Dover from a stretch of offshore sandbars and shoals, prompting an outcry from conservationists who fear that would endanger the seals, birds and other marine life for whom the sandbars provide habitat and food.

Different types of sand mining inflict different types of damage. Dredging from river beds destroys the habitat of bottom-dwelling creatures and organisms. The churned-up sediment clouds the water, suffocating fish and blocking the sunlight that sustains underwater vegetation. Kenyan officials shut down all river sand mines in one part of the country a few years ago because of the environmental damage it was causing. India’s supreme court recently warned that “the alarming rate of unrestricted sand mining” is disrupting riparian ecosystems all over the country, with fatal consequences for fish and other aquatic organisms and “disaster” for many bird species.

Sand extraction from rivers has also caused millions of dollars in damage to infrastructure. When stirred, sediment clogs up water supply equipment, and all the earth removed from river banks leaves the foundations of bridges exposed and unsupported. A 1998 study found that each tonne of aggregate mined from a California river caused $3 in infrastructure damage – costs that are borne by taxpayers. In Ghana, sand miners have dug up so much ground that they have exposed the foundations of hillside buildings, putting them at risk of collapse.

It’s not just a theoretical risk. Sand mining caused a bridge to collapse in Taiwan in 2000, and another the following year in Portugal, as a bus was passing over it; 70 people were killed. Another bridge collapse in India in 2016 that killed 26 may have been caused by sand mining, though the local government denies it.

Mining sand from the floodplains near rivers is less damaging but it can alter the water’s course, creating dead-end diversions and pits that have proven fatal to salmon in Washington state. In Australia, flood plains that are home to the world’s biggest collection of rare carnivorous plants are being wiped out by sand mining. In Wisconsin and Minnesota, farmers fear that a recent boom in sand mining is polluting their water and air. In Vietnam, miners have torn up hundreds of acres of forest and farmers’ fields to get at underground sand deposits.

As land quarries and riverbeds become exhausted, sand miners are turning to the seas. The UK, for instance, gets about one fifth of the nation’s sand from the ocean floor. Worldwide, thousands of ships vacuum up millions of tonnes from the seabed each year, tearing up habitats and muddying waters with sand plumes that can affect aquatic life far from the original site.

Closer to shore, in places such as coastal Cambodia, dredging threatens important mangrove forests, seagrass beds and endangered species like Irrawaddy and spinner dolphins, and the royal turtle. On land, sand miners have devoured whole swaths of beach, from Jamaica to Russia.

The most dramatic impact of ocean sand mining is surely felt in Indonesia, where sand miners have completely erased at least two dozen islands since 2005. The stuff of those islands mostly ended up in Singapore, which needs titanic amounts to continue its programme of artificially adding territory by reclaiming land from the sea. The city-state has created an extra 20 square miles in the past 40 years and is still adding more, making it by far the world’s largest sand importer. The demand has denuded beaches and river beds in neighbouring countries to such an extent that Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam have all restricted or banned the export of sand to Singapore.

“It’s the same story as over-fishing and over-foresting,” says Pascal Peduzzi, a researcher with the United Nations environment programme who authored a study on sand mining. “It’s another way to look at unsustainable development.” The problem is that the supply of sand that can be mined sustainably is finite – but as the great urbanisation boom is proving, the demand for it is anything but.

Read more!

Animal culling a 'very small part' of AVA’s overall work: Desmond Lee

Channel NewsAsia 28 Feb 17;

SINGAPORE: The culling of animals is only a “very small part” of the overall work of the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA), and it does not track the expenditure it incurs on doing so, said Senior Minister of State for National Development Desmond Lee.

Answering a question in Parliament on Tuesday (Feb 28), Mr Lee said AVA takes a multi-pronged approach to manage the animal population and mitigate health and safety concerns. It first undertakes a professional assessment of potential threats that animals might pose to public health and safety, he explained, and AVA will have to act if there “significant health and safety concerns.”

“Where feasible, it will work with stakeholders, including the animal welfare groups and organisations like Wildlife Reserves Singapore to relocate and rehome these animals,” said Mr Lee. “Culling is used only as a last resort.”

In response to a clarification from MP Louis Ng, Mr Lee added that AVA’s total budget for animal management operations for 2016 was S$800,000.

Mr Lee said that AVA will continue to conduct relevant studies and research to inform its policies, and facilitate a “science-based approach” to animal management. One example of this, he said, was in Nov 2015, where AVA engaged a team of local and overseas academics to start a three-year stray dog study. “This study will estimate the stray dog population in Singapore, look at the ecological and biological aspects of stray dogs, and determine the efficacy of various population management options like sterilisation.”

Mr Lee added that the community also needs to do their part in helping to reduce “potential animal-human conflicts”. “For example, if everyone practises responsible pet ownership and refrains from feeding strays, the number of stray animals will fall and present a much smaller problem.”

“AVA has been and will continue to work with various animal welfare groups on public education for responsible pet ownership.”

- CNA/lc

Read more!

Timing of water price hike more synchronised to political than economic cycle, says WP

The opposition politicians also call for a more in-depth explanation from the Government on water pricing methods, while voicing concern over the impact on costs of living.
Channel NewsAsia 28 Feb 17;

SINGAPORE: The opposition Workers’ Party (WP) on Tuesday (Feb 28) questioned the timing and impact of the 30 per cent water price hike announced as part of Budget 2017 last week.

Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Leon Perera suggested that recent Budgets from the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) Government trended towards “racking up a surplus in the early part of the Parliamentary term and then incurring deficit spending towards the end of the term close to the General Election (GE)”.

Mr Perera said the timing of various price hikes seemed “more synchronised to the political cycle than to the economic cycle”.

“Is this the right time to raise the electricity tariff? The gas price? Parking fees? Diesel usage costs? And last but not least, to raise the water price?” he asked.

“Hitting the economy with these multiple price hikes within the space of a few months may make good political sense, because people have three years to forget them before the next General Election. But do they make good economic sense?” he said.

“Why introduce all these price hikes now at a time of economic fragility, when they could tip some SMEs (small- and medium-sized enterprises) at the margins over the edge, when they increase the hardships faced by Singaporeans beset by job market insecurities? Why not introduce some of them later when there is an upswing in external demand?”

HOW DOES THE GOVERNMENT PRICE WATER?

MP for Aljunied GRC Pritam Singh called for “a deeper explanation from the Government about how it prices water”. “Can the Government also share how much it costs each desalination and NEWater plant to produce water today, especially since some of these plants operate on a private-public partnership basis? How do they compare with plants run directly by the PUB?” he enquired.

He then asked if the falling water levels in Malaysia’s Linggiu Reservoir had an impact on the water price revision, “especially since the Government’s position as late as 2013 confirmed no need to raise water prices”.

Mr Singh said he wondered if the reservoir’s water levels dipping to zero per cent would result in another rise in water prices. “That would also prompt a corollary question as to whether the latest water price revision was set with a view to account for the complete failure of the Linggiu Reservoir,” he added.

“KNOCK-ON EFFECTS ON COST OF LIVING”

NCMPs Dennis Tan and Daniel Goh both expressed fears over the water price hike having an impact on the cost of living.

Speaking in Mandarin, Mr Tan said: “The companies and industries affected most would be those in F&B. How can the Government ensure the rise in water tariffs will not cause prices to increase in hawker centres, coffeeshops and other products as well?”

Mr Tan added that he was concerned by the volume-based duty of S$0.10 per litre on diesel.

“I can understand the pollution reasons but I question if it’s wise to time it now when the present economic situation is not healthy,” he said. “Can the Government assure the people that transport costs of taxis and buses etc will not increase?”

“Although the Government has announced GST vouchers to give some rebate to some families, most Singaporeans, industries and companies will not fulfil the criteria and not receive anything, or else just a token rebate,” he argued.

Meanwhile, Associate Professor Goh described the water price hike as “ominous” as he urged the Government to strengthen safety nets for middle-income households in particular.

“The 30 per cent hike in water price and the carbon tax when implemented will have knock-on effects on the costs of living, as all areas of everyday life are affected by the use of water and electricity,” he said.

“Middle-income households do not have the benefit of the enhanced financial transfers to low-income households to soften the impact of the water price increase … (They) will feel the head-on impact of the increase in costs of living most strongly.”

High-income earners will also be subsidised many times more than middle-income workers when it comes to the Personal Income Tax Rebate of 20 per cent, capped at S$500, said Assoc Prof Goh.

Earlier, Mr Perera said Budget 2017 had “not made a decisive shift towards building local enterprises as an engine of value creation alongside MNCs and GLCs” and this was a "huge missed opportunity” he said. “We also … can and should do more to enable our students to understand how entrepreneurship is both a viable and a socially meaningful calling. Right now, I fear that most aspiring students dream of becoming civil servants or working in an MNC.”

He also said Budget 2017 initiatives did not do enough to foster risk-taking. “It is no coincidence that the countries with the most innovative companies and disruptors are also the countries that have a larger role for social safety nets and risk pooling,” he said. “We must create enough security and confidence for Singaporeans to become the disruptors and not the disrupted.”

“While we do recognise the positive moves in Budget 2017, we question the timing of some of the measures that will raise costs as well as their necessity and justification,” Mr Perera concluded. “We question whether more can be done to support a beleaguered economy.”

“And above all, we question the missed opportunities to make decisive, bold moves in local enterprise development, risk-pooling and education to pivot Singapore towards truly finding its place in the sun in the 21st century.”

- CNA/jo


WP questions need for water price hike
SIAU MING EN Today Online 1 Mar 17;

SINGAPORE — Workers’ Party (WP) Members of Parliament yesterday questioned the decision to raise water prices, calling on the Government to thoroughly explain how the impending 30 per cent hike was calculated. They also suggested that the timing was “political” to avoid having to raise prices when elections draw near.

Speaking in Parliament yesterday during the debate on the Budget statement, Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied GRC) raised a slew of questions, seeking to “understand the decision-making processes” behind the increases.

“I believe a deeper explanation from the Government about how it prices water and its long-run cost imperatives would enable the public to better understand and rationalise this water price hike, in addition to improving public understanding of this issue,” said Mr Singh, who noted that the water price hikes came on the back of other municipal price increases. These include the increases in HDB car park charges, higher electricity tariffs, and higher service and conservancy charges — all within the last three months.

Last week, Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat announced that water prices would go up by 30 per cent in two phases, in July this year and July next year. Noting that water sufficiency is a matter of national survival, he said the authorities have priced water to reflect the higher costs of desalination and NEWater production “because every additional drop of water has to come from these two sources”.

PUB has also said that the total water price is pegged to the long run marginal costs of water supply — on which Mr Singh pressed for more details, asking how PUB calculates the components of these costs and assesses when water prices should be raised.

Turning to the time period used for its projections, Mr Singh also questioned if the authorities are looking at the expiry of the water agreement with Malaysia in 2061, or when Singapore’s water consumption is expected to double, for instance.

He also asked if the record low levels in Linggiu Reservoir — which enables Singapore to reliably draw water from the Johor River to meet half of its water needs — were a factor in deciding to raise prices.

Instead of solely relying on water pricing to promote conservation, Mr Singh suggested that the Government turn to creative pricing strategies, such as lowering taxes for those who use less water.

WP Non-Constituency MPs Leon Perera and Dennis Tan also questioned the timing of the water price hikes, with Mr Perera suggesting that the timing of the recent price hikes “seem more synchronised to the political cycle than to the economic cycle”.

“What is the justification for these price hikes and their timing? Hitting the economy with these multiple price hikes within the space of a few months may make good political sense, because people have three years to forget them before the next General Election,” Mr Perera said.

Even with U-Save rebates to cushion the hikes, Mr Tan said there would be firms, such as those in the food and beverage industries, that will be affected. This could have an adverse “chain effect” that leads to increases in the cost of living.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten) urged the Government to “consider a stay on water price increases” for this year amid the uncertain economic situation. Due to “rumour-mongering”, many people have been caught up with the impending price hike that they forgot about the measures introduced to mitigate he price increase, he said.

East Coast GRC MP Lee Yi Shyan called the hike a “necessary and small insurance”. While Singapore was subject to the same dry season as neighbouring Malaysian states last year, it did not have to resort to water rationing, said Mr Lee, who was formerly Senior Minister of State for National Development and Trade and Industry.

“The belated 30 per cent hike, put in context, is a necessary and small insurance compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars we need to set aside for future water plants and infrastructure,” he said.

Meanwhile, Nee Soon GRC MP Henry Kwek called on the Government to monitor the effects of the fee hike on individuals and businesses, to see if further tweaks are necessary. ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY KELLY NG



Budget 2017: Defer water price hike, relook help for middle class, say MPs
Lianne Chia Channel NewsAsia 28 Feb 17;

SINGAPORE: The water price increase and helping the middle class cope with the rising cost of living were among the issues brought up by Members of Parliament (MPs) on Tuesday (Feb 28), the first day of Parliament’s debate on the Budget statement.

MPs also pointed out the need to relook the Government’s approach of looking at home type as a measure of determining the distribution of grants and support.

"DEFINITELY NOT A GOOD TIME" TO INCREASE WATER PRICES

In his speech, MP for Mountbatten Lim Biow Chuan asked the Government to consider a stay on the water price increase for this year. In his Budget statement, Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat had announced that water prices would be increased by 30 per cent in two phases over the next two years.

While Mr Lim noted that “there is never a good time” to raise the prices of utilities, it is “definitely not a good time”, given the economic uncertainty.

He pointed out that the price increase appears to have distracted many Singaporeans from “much more important messages”, like how to plan for one’s future, and the fast-changing world.

“Water is critical to our survival and we need to take adequate measures to conserve water, but sadly, the 30 per cent increase in prices seems to have distracted from the main intent of the Budget,” he said. “And due to rumour-mongering, many people seem to have been so caught up and concerned about the increase that they seem to have forgotten or ignored the various other measures the Government has introduced to help mitigate the price increase.”

He added that if it is not possible to defer the price increase, he hopes the Government can ensure that businessmen do not profiteer from it. One way they can do this, he said, is to set up a committee against profiteering, similar to the one that was set up when the GST was raised.

MP for Nee Soon GRC Henry Kwek also spoke about the water price increase and its impact on the cost of living, adding that he has seen the water bills of some hawkers in his constituency.

“I saw the bill for an entire coffee shop with six stalls. On average, each stall is using about 50 cubic metres of water a month, which costs around S$100,” he said. “With the new water tariff, each stall will see an increase of around S$30 a month.”

From this, Mr Kwek noted that it is unclear if the water price increase will lead to a significant increase in the cost of living. Nevertheless, he called on the Government to continue monitoring the situation to see if any further tweaks are necessary.

The issue was also brought up by Workers’ Party MPs, with Non-Constituency MP Leon Perera commenting that the timing of the water price increase was “more synchronised to the political cycle than the economic cycle”.

HOME TYPE SHOULD NOT BE PROXY FOR MEASUREMENT OF WEALTH

MPs also raised concerns about middle-income Singaporeans and retirees who may not benefit from the support measures outlined in the Budget.

“Our current approach uses size and the value of housing type as the primary factor for qualification,” MP for East Coast GRC Jessica Tan said. “The criterion is also not based on ownership but the type of housing you live in.”

“While logical, this may no longer be as valid or accurate, as there are some living in HDB flats who may be more well-off than someone living in a private property.”

Mr Lim pointed out that there are professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) living in condominiums and five-room flats, as well as retirees who live in private homes which they bought after saving for many years.

He explained that these retirees have to rely on their savings or their children to provide for them, while the income of PMETs is unlikely to rise due to wage freezes in many companies. Yet, this group may not benefit from many of the support measures in the Budget, he added.

“They feel they have been left out in this Budget,” he said. “They feel penalised simply because they were trying their best to live their aspirations in the past."

“I urge the Government to consider ways in which we can allow the retirees and middle-income Singaporeans to share and enjoy the growth of the country and move forward as a nation,” he said. “We should find more equitable ways to share and redistribute the country’s wealth, rather than relying on home type as a proxy for measurement of wealth.”

Ms Tan made a similar point. While she stressed that she is not asking to increase the number of people receiving help, she said there is a need for the Government to relook the distribution of subsidies to ensure that “those who do need help are able to receive it”.

MP for Ang Mo Kio GRC Darryl David made a similar suggestion in relation to the increased CPF Housing Grant. It was announced in Budget 2017 that first-timer couples looking to buy a resale flat will now get higher grants, which are pegged at S$50,000 for those who buy four-room or smaller flats, and S$40,000 for couples who buy five-room or larger flats.

Mr David said he appreciated the rationale that the Government would not want to provide too much in subsidies for those who buy bigger flats, as they are likely to be from a higher income group. But he said it cannot ignore that some higher-income consumers may choose to purchase a more expensive four-room flat due to its location, age and other factors.

“Conversely, some consumers with a lower income might have to purchase a five-room flat, as opposed to a more expensive four-room flat in other locations due to their family requirements,” he added.

Instead, he suggested that the Government provide a percentage grant based on the purchase price of the flat. “This amount would be subject to an absolute ceiling amount, and whichever amount is higher would then be given to the qualifying purchaser as the housing grant,” he said.

Mr David also expressed his hope that the Government could review its existing assistance schemes from time to time so that it can remain responsive to people’s needs. To that end, he suggested that the Government consider setting aside an escrow fund held by a statutory board or ministry, and allow them to implement a one-off support scheme whenever the need arises.

“This would give the Government an additional channel to remain responsive to rising cost and potential hardship that Singaporeans might face,” he added.

- CNA/lc

Read more!

Sembawang Hot Spring area to become a park

Linette Lai, Straits Times AsiaOne 28 Feb 17;

There were mixed reactions from visitors to Sembawang Hot Spring when told that the area will be turned into a park as soon as next year.

Some people who have been visiting it for years were cold to the prospect and expressed dismay, while others were warm to the idea of redeveloping the area, which sits in a military camp.

Earlier this month, the National Parks Board (NParks) said on government procurement website GeBiz that it was looking for "multi-disciplinary consultancy services" for the development of a park, which includes the hot spring, along Gambas Avenue.

The new park will occupy around 1ha, Ms Kartini Omar, group director of parks development and Jurong Lake Gardens at NParks, told The Straits Times. "Development of the park will start by end-2017, and is expected to be completed by end-2018."

Apart from design and implementation, the consulting team "will also be required to provide a comprehensive report on the hydrogeological study of the site", she said.

Retired contractor Lim Yok Toh, 76, was one of those who prefer it as it is - tranquil, quiet, rustic and surrounded by nature.

Mr Lim, who visits about once a week, said: "Once you build a park, people will come and bring their children along and then it will be noisy. I prefer it like this - where you can see the trees and hear the birds chirping."

But people like Mr Gui Kim Toon, 74, who see the benefits of development, disagree.

"It would be nice if we had some shelter to protect us from the sun and rain," said Mr Gui, who visits it two to three times a week. "It can also get very messy now - sometimes people wash their clothes here and hang them up to dry."

Regular visitors even padlock their buckets - or in one case, a metal bathtub - to the chain link fence enclosing the spring.

Ms Lee Bee Wah, who is MP for the area, said that the comments she has heard so far are positive.

"Of course, there are people who want to keep the area as it is. I think we can strike a balance between the two - build facilities that help people enjoy the hot springs, like toilets and water basins."

In April last year, Mr Ong Ye Kung - who was then Senior Minister of State for Defence - said that the Defence Ministry will return the land that the hot spring is on to the state.

Senior Minister of State for National Development Desmond Lee has saidthat the area must retain its rustic character if it is developed.

Read more!

Malaysia: Johor prince spearheads effort to recycle waste water to boost state's water reserves

Ahmad Fairuz Othman New Straits Times 28 Feb 17;

JOHOR BARU: Johor will become the first state in the country to recycle waste water for use in the industrial sector under an initiative spearheaded by Tunku Temenggong Johor Tunku Idris Sultan Ibrahim.

The Johor prince said the initiative was urgently needed because of the estimated 1,173 million litres per day (MLD) of waste water produced by Johor, which could be recycled to boost the overall water reserves in the state.

Tunku Idris said the country's first facility to process waste water will be built in Pasir Gudang, which will be turned into an eco-friendly industrial town.

"Since most of the domestic water supply is discharged into our drains and rivers instead of consumer as drinking water, I have worked with world class technology partners over the last 12 months to draw up plans for recycled water for the use of our industries in Johor and it is called Bluewater.

"Like NEWater in Singapore, the water will be tested to meet World Health Organisation standards and UN-water (United Nations-Water) guidelines," Tunku Idris told a press conference here.

Tunku Idris is honorary chairman of Jauhar Green Sdn Bhd, a company in green technology initiatives, which is instrumental in developing

The announcement for the waste water recycling facility in Pasir Gudang will be made by the end of next month.

The facility is expected to be built within the next three years, and involves a collaboration with the state government subsidiary Kumpulan Prasarana Rakyat Johor Sdn Bhd.

"This initiative to recycle waste water for industries is the first of its kind in the country.

"If we do not start now, then when? We cannot risk having another water shortage," he said referring to cases of low water levels recorded in a few dams in Johor in the past two years.


Johor to open water recycling plant in Pasir Gudang in March
MOHD FARHAAN SHAH The Star 2 Mar 17;

JOHOR BARU: Johor will soon have its own water recycling technology to provide clean water in the state.

Jauhar Green honorary chairman Tunku Temenggong of Johor Tunku Idris Iskandar Ibni Sultan Ibrahim said people should not take clean water for granted.

The supply of water is uncertain as it is dependent on the weather while it is also costly to maintain the state’s water supply, from pipelines to reservoirs, he added.

He also said that the 332 litres of potable water used or lost per capita per day, less than 2% was consumed as drinking water while the rest were used in bathrooms and for household appliances like washing machines.

“When this 326 litres is discharged into the drains, it is termed as wastewater.

“Imagine the amount used and discharged daily by 3.6 million Johoreans.

“That is 1,173 million litres per day, about the same amount we sell to Singapore daily,” he said during a press conference at the Istana Johor Department in Istana Besar here.

Tunku Idris pointed out that Johor has 5.6 million people and big industrial users which use lots of water.

He said recycling water was common in Australia and California in the United States.

In Singapore, the Public Utilities Board launched Newater in 2003.

He added that Newater was primarily used for industries in Singapore and it met 30% of the island republic’s water needs.

Tunku Idris said Johor had to start water recycling to protect its national parks and rainforest from encroachment.

“As development, industrialisation and urbanisation shrink our water catchments, our land and rivers will be able to absorb less of Johor’s rainfall, thereby reducing our water resources,” he said, adding that there was a solution to this.

He said he was working closely with world class technology partners over the last 12 months to draw up plans for recycled water for the use of industries in Johor, and it is called Bluewater.

Like Newater in Singapore, the water will be tested to meet World Health Organisation (WHO) standards and UN guidelines, he said, adding that the results were given to the state government.

The Bluewater plant in Pasir Gudang is expected to be launched later this month.

Read more!