Sand being dredged in the Peam Krasop Wildlife Sanctuary, recognised as an internationally significant wetland and home to endangered species.
Read original article at theonlinecitizen
December 13, 2011
by Ezra Ho
We are living in unprecedented times, standing at the crossroads of planetary survival. After decades of industrial overgrowth, Humanity is threatening to destroy the life fabric of the planet. Already, the UN estimates that at least 60% of examined ecosystems are in degraded states, or in the process of being degraded. Of the 9 systems that form the backbone of our planetary life support system, 3 have already crossed ecological limits. And only God knows how many “unknown unknowns” are in this equation. As we move forward from the COP17 at Durban, a death sentence has been passed on the planet. While an international agreement has been reached, it is very likely that the guardrail of a 2°C temperature rise, barring catastrophic climate consequences, will be exceeded due to a lack of international commitment. Together, these cumulative stresses on planetary systems highlight an alarming threat to our survival as ecosystems and their derived services underpin the continual growth and prosperity of human societies.
Closer to home, Singapore has expediently set herself up as a regional paragon of sustainability; after all, being an extremely land-scarce country without natural resource reserves, environmental sustainability is a prerequisite for economic survival. In recent years, much progress has been made towards this goal. For instance, the Building and Construction Authority’s Green Mark has been given legal sanction towards improving building energy efficiency and promoting sustainable urban environments.
In addition, backed by governmental purse strings, Singapore has become a significant regional force for research into solar technologies and energy efficiency. Moreover, from hosting sustainability conferences such as the biennial World Cities Summit in 2010, to developing the City Biodiversity Index that was formally endorsed at the 10th Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) at Nagoya, Singapore has demonstrated leadership in environmental governance.
Yet, beneath this veneer of sustainability excellence lies an economic pragmatism that is devoid of any genuine environmental ethics. In order to transcend natural limitations, Singapore’s developmental strategy has involved significant amounts of land reclaimation which has augmented our landmass by at least 20% since the 1960s. Even as reclaimed land forms the foundation on which Singapore’s economic success is built, the ecological externalities associated with importing vast amounts of sand have been ignored.
Recognising the environmental dangers of sand profiteering, Malaysia banned sand exports to Singapore in 1997. Indonesia followed suit in 2007, over signs that the Riau Islands, which monthly exported 250,000-300,000 tons of sand to Singapore, were experiencing adverse environmental degradation, representing the symbolic and literal transmutation of natural resources into money gain. In 2009, both Vietnam and Cambodia also banned exports of sand to Singapore, pushing suppliers to source from countries like Myanmar, the Philippines and even Bangladesh, which is already experiencing severe coastal erosion.
Like patchwork that inevitably fails to patch a leaking bucket, legal recourse leads to the proliferation of unregulated, black markets for sand. In this case, such legal patchwork does not even seem to have the necessary effect. As international NGO Global Witness and AP reporter Denis Gray have revealed, Cambodia’s sand trade, predominantly fuelled by demand from Singapore, is still going strong, wrecking life organisation wherever it dredges.
In 2009, Global Witness estimates that approximately 796,000 tons of sand a month were being exported to Singapore from the Koh Kong province alone, representing an annual value of USD$248 million. Even though the Cambodian government had instituted a ban on river sand, the kleptocratic plutocrats paid no heed. Indeed, in Cambodia, corporate and governmental interests and bodies often overlapped. Not only were dredging operations continued in direct violation of the national ban, but Cambodian environmental regulations requiring environmental impact assessments (EIA), together with stakeholder input were ignored as the money poured in.
Tragically, sand dredging was approved in the protected Peam Krasop Wildlife Sanctuary, as well as the Koh Kapik and Associated Islets Ramsar sites. In a violation of the precautionary approach to resource extraction, dredging operations introduced massive pressure on sensitive, though poorly studied habitats like seagrass beds, mangrove forests and the coral reefs of Koh Kong. As ecosystems were decimated- threatening endangered species like the Irawaddy and spinner dolphins and the green turtles- local livelihoods were also shattered. Fish and crab stocks plummeted as their habitats were dredged for profit.
Disturbingly, Global Witness presents evidence that such transactions were going on with the tacit approval from Singaporean companies, as well as government officials. Ships from Singapore-registered companies were repeatedly seen receiving and transporting sand, while two sand exploitation and export licenses bore the stamp and signature of then-First Secretary of the Singapore Embassy in Cambodia. Moreover, statutory boards like the Building and Construction Authority (BCA), the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and the Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) were reported to have commercial links to sand trading Cambodian companies.
As a country that prides itself on sustainability efforts and sound environmental governance, it is unbecoming of Singapore to turn a blind eye to such ecologically-detrimental profiteering just because they are not taking place on Singapore soil. In fact, all the more reason for Singapore to take action, given our position of leadership, in order to lead the way in regional sustainable resource management. Furthermore, as agencies under the purview of government ministries, BCA, HDB and JTC personnel should be more stringent on the production processes of their sourced materials, not blinded by corporate profits and end-of-year bonuses.
Author Julie Metz ironically noted that hypocrisy has its own elegant symmetry; and indeed, Singapore has a rich history of such elegant patterns. As Singapore’s political climate matures, it is upon our generation to speak out, and prod governmental policy towards holistic sustainability. The reins of power must be loosened, and our leaders must realise that given the global environmental crisis, it is time to see beyond material gain and recognise that the train of thought behind sustainability extends beyond self-centered, nationalistic interests.
That being said, a more profound point needs to be made. And that is that the ecological crisis is very much intertwined with the current socio-economic, political dysfunctions that are taking place around the world; for the cancerous degradation of the ecological fabric of the planet is symptomatic of the systemic flaws of the socio-economic and political structures on which our societies are built. As this awareness of systemic decay is awakened, many criticisms of the monetary-market paradigm have surfaced. From the infinite-growth model predicated on continual sequencing of intangible Gross Domestic Product (GDP), to the cost efficiency paradigm that limits maximum product sustainability, to the value system distortions brought about by advertising, it is clear that our social structures have been divorced from tangible ecological realities.
Making matters worse, such a paradigm is based on and fuels a divisive, fragmented outlook that is represented by a self-maximising, nationalistic mentality that governs international relations today. As genius inventor Buckminster Fuller wrote, we are all passengers on “Spaceship Earth”, winding its way through the cosmic ocean. And it would be the height of suicidal folly should there be 197 admirals on a ship each with their own direction and vested interests to promote, eluding a single vision for planetary progress.
The fact of the matter is that world hunger could be easily solved, poverty eradicated and the transition to a global renewable energy grid achieved with present resources and capabilities. Yet, under the current paradigm where money talks the loudest, corporate-military interests have locked down precisely these resources in order to further and perpetuate a global oligarchy of power and wealth. Going beyond the superficial blame game, the 1% is being aided by the 99%, facilitated by prevalent social structures- historical artefacts from an age of scarcity, where narrow self-preservation was a prerequisite for survival. As Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment revealed in the 1960s, the power of the situation, and hence, structural conditioning, have the ability to overwhelmingly influence behaviour. In a time of unprecedented crisis, we have horribly underestimated the power of structure in reaching a solution.
Hence, it should not be a surprise when corporations engage in unspeakable acts of environmental destruction, when financial institutions profit off the destruction of whole economies, leaving millions in poverty, when drug companies knowingly sell harmful products for profit, or when a country cuts back on social spending; for that is precisely the behaviour that our social system is predicated on and calls for. As efforts are made towards reaching solutions, coming up with various permutations of the current paradigm, such as carbon trading and the like, are pointless. Because they evade addressing the root dysfunction of the problem, that of a system that inherently prizes money gain over life interests, nothing will substantially change.
In advocating for a new governing paradigm, organisations like the New Economics Foundation, the Institute for New Economic Thinking, or the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE) have made tremendous progress in promoting a system that first and foremost takes care of human needs, instead of merely paying lip-service to the ideal. However, none go as far as a The Venus Project, which calls for a complete redesign of our society in order to eliminate the conditions that give rise to war, poverty and suffering. Having identified the problem, the next most important step is to be educated about the solutions at hand, and we all have to do our part in this.
Even as the window of opportunity to salvage the ecological disaster we find ourselves in narrows, no solution seems to be forthcoming from international politics. In the bid for short term material gain, our future is being sacrificed. In this age of globalisation where isolated existences have given way to a shared sense of destiny, it is time for our civilisation to further evolve from global citizens to planetary stewards. Stewards with a duty to a thriving, socially just and ecologically balanced civilisation. United as one, divided by zero. Otherwise, we are fucking doomed.
–
The author is an undergraduate at National University of Singapore.
Read original article at theonlinecitizen
December 13, 2011
by Ezra Ho
We are living in unprecedented times, standing at the crossroads of planetary survival. After decades of industrial overgrowth, Humanity is threatening to destroy the life fabric of the planet. Already, the UN estimates that at least 60% of examined ecosystems are in degraded states, or in the process of being degraded. Of the 9 systems that form the backbone of our planetary life support system, 3 have already crossed ecological limits. And only God knows how many “unknown unknowns” are in this equation. As we move forward from the COP17 at Durban, a death sentence has been passed on the planet. While an international agreement has been reached, it is very likely that the guardrail of a 2°C temperature rise, barring catastrophic climate consequences, will be exceeded due to a lack of international commitment. Together, these cumulative stresses on planetary systems highlight an alarming threat to our survival as ecosystems and their derived services underpin the continual growth and prosperity of human societies.
Closer to home, Singapore has expediently set herself up as a regional paragon of sustainability; after all, being an extremely land-scarce country without natural resource reserves, environmental sustainability is a prerequisite for economic survival. In recent years, much progress has been made towards this goal. For instance, the Building and Construction Authority’s Green Mark has been given legal sanction towards improving building energy efficiency and promoting sustainable urban environments.
In addition, backed by governmental purse strings, Singapore has become a significant regional force for research into solar technologies and energy efficiency. Moreover, from hosting sustainability conferences such as the biennial World Cities Summit in 2010, to developing the City Biodiversity Index that was formally endorsed at the 10th Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) at Nagoya, Singapore has demonstrated leadership in environmental governance.
Yet, beneath this veneer of sustainability excellence lies an economic pragmatism that is devoid of any genuine environmental ethics. In order to transcend natural limitations, Singapore’s developmental strategy has involved significant amounts of land reclaimation which has augmented our landmass by at least 20% since the 1960s. Even as reclaimed land forms the foundation on which Singapore’s economic success is built, the ecological externalities associated with importing vast amounts of sand have been ignored.
Recognising the environmental dangers of sand profiteering, Malaysia banned sand exports to Singapore in 1997. Indonesia followed suit in 2007, over signs that the Riau Islands, which monthly exported 250,000-300,000 tons of sand to Singapore, were experiencing adverse environmental degradation, representing the symbolic and literal transmutation of natural resources into money gain. In 2009, both Vietnam and Cambodia also banned exports of sand to Singapore, pushing suppliers to source from countries like Myanmar, the Philippines and even Bangladesh, which is already experiencing severe coastal erosion.
Like patchwork that inevitably fails to patch a leaking bucket, legal recourse leads to the proliferation of unregulated, black markets for sand. In this case, such legal patchwork does not even seem to have the necessary effect. As international NGO Global Witness and AP reporter Denis Gray have revealed, Cambodia’s sand trade, predominantly fuelled by demand from Singapore, is still going strong, wrecking life organisation wherever it dredges.
In 2009, Global Witness estimates that approximately 796,000 tons of sand a month were being exported to Singapore from the Koh Kong province alone, representing an annual value of USD$248 million. Even though the Cambodian government had instituted a ban on river sand, the kleptocratic plutocrats paid no heed. Indeed, in Cambodia, corporate and governmental interests and bodies often overlapped. Not only were dredging operations continued in direct violation of the national ban, but Cambodian environmental regulations requiring environmental impact assessments (EIA), together with stakeholder input were ignored as the money poured in.
Tragically, sand dredging was approved in the protected Peam Krasop Wildlife Sanctuary, as well as the Koh Kapik and Associated Islets Ramsar sites. In a violation of the precautionary approach to resource extraction, dredging operations introduced massive pressure on sensitive, though poorly studied habitats like seagrass beds, mangrove forests and the coral reefs of Koh Kong. As ecosystems were decimated- threatening endangered species like the Irawaddy and spinner dolphins and the green turtles- local livelihoods were also shattered. Fish and crab stocks plummeted as their habitats were dredged for profit.
Disturbingly, Global Witness presents evidence that such transactions were going on with the tacit approval from Singaporean companies, as well as government officials. Ships from Singapore-registered companies were repeatedly seen receiving and transporting sand, while two sand exploitation and export licenses bore the stamp and signature of then-First Secretary of the Singapore Embassy in Cambodia. Moreover, statutory boards like the Building and Construction Authority (BCA), the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and the Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) were reported to have commercial links to sand trading Cambodian companies.
As a country that prides itself on sustainability efforts and sound environmental governance, it is unbecoming of Singapore to turn a blind eye to such ecologically-detrimental profiteering just because they are not taking place on Singapore soil. In fact, all the more reason for Singapore to take action, given our position of leadership, in order to lead the way in regional sustainable resource management. Furthermore, as agencies under the purview of government ministries, BCA, HDB and JTC personnel should be more stringent on the production processes of their sourced materials, not blinded by corporate profits and end-of-year bonuses.
Author Julie Metz ironically noted that hypocrisy has its own elegant symmetry; and indeed, Singapore has a rich history of such elegant patterns. As Singapore’s political climate matures, it is upon our generation to speak out, and prod governmental policy towards holistic sustainability. The reins of power must be loosened, and our leaders must realise that given the global environmental crisis, it is time to see beyond material gain and recognise that the train of thought behind sustainability extends beyond self-centered, nationalistic interests.
That being said, a more profound point needs to be made. And that is that the ecological crisis is very much intertwined with the current socio-economic, political dysfunctions that are taking place around the world; for the cancerous degradation of the ecological fabric of the planet is symptomatic of the systemic flaws of the socio-economic and political structures on which our societies are built. As this awareness of systemic decay is awakened, many criticisms of the monetary-market paradigm have surfaced. From the infinite-growth model predicated on continual sequencing of intangible Gross Domestic Product (GDP), to the cost efficiency paradigm that limits maximum product sustainability, to the value system distortions brought about by advertising, it is clear that our social structures have been divorced from tangible ecological realities.
Making matters worse, such a paradigm is based on and fuels a divisive, fragmented outlook that is represented by a self-maximising, nationalistic mentality that governs international relations today. As genius inventor Buckminster Fuller wrote, we are all passengers on “Spaceship Earth”, winding its way through the cosmic ocean. And it would be the height of suicidal folly should there be 197 admirals on a ship each with their own direction and vested interests to promote, eluding a single vision for planetary progress.
The fact of the matter is that world hunger could be easily solved, poverty eradicated and the transition to a global renewable energy grid achieved with present resources and capabilities. Yet, under the current paradigm where money talks the loudest, corporate-military interests have locked down precisely these resources in order to further and perpetuate a global oligarchy of power and wealth. Going beyond the superficial blame game, the 1% is being aided by the 99%, facilitated by prevalent social structures- historical artefacts from an age of scarcity, where narrow self-preservation was a prerequisite for survival. As Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment revealed in the 1960s, the power of the situation, and hence, structural conditioning, have the ability to overwhelmingly influence behaviour. In a time of unprecedented crisis, we have horribly underestimated the power of structure in reaching a solution.
Hence, it should not be a surprise when corporations engage in unspeakable acts of environmental destruction, when financial institutions profit off the destruction of whole economies, leaving millions in poverty, when drug companies knowingly sell harmful products for profit, or when a country cuts back on social spending; for that is precisely the behaviour that our social system is predicated on and calls for. As efforts are made towards reaching solutions, coming up with various permutations of the current paradigm, such as carbon trading and the like, are pointless. Because they evade addressing the root dysfunction of the problem, that of a system that inherently prizes money gain over life interests, nothing will substantially change.
In advocating for a new governing paradigm, organisations like the New Economics Foundation, the Institute for New Economic Thinking, or the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE) have made tremendous progress in promoting a system that first and foremost takes care of human needs, instead of merely paying lip-service to the ideal. However, none go as far as a The Venus Project, which calls for a complete redesign of our society in order to eliminate the conditions that give rise to war, poverty and suffering. Having identified the problem, the next most important step is to be educated about the solutions at hand, and we all have to do our part in this.
Even as the window of opportunity to salvage the ecological disaster we find ourselves in narrows, no solution seems to be forthcoming from international politics. In the bid for short term material gain, our future is being sacrificed. In this age of globalisation where isolated existences have given way to a shared sense of destiny, it is time for our civilisation to further evolve from global citizens to planetary stewards. Stewards with a duty to a thriving, socially just and ecologically balanced civilisation. United as one, divided by zero. Otherwise, we are fucking doomed.
–
The author is an undergraduate at National University of Singapore.
No comments:
Post a Comment