Singapore: Green paradise or polluted city?

Things get a little murky when the methodology of some green rankings favours large countries, and there is no universal energy-efficiency yardstick

By Dominic Nathan

SPOTLIGHT: THE ENVIRONMENT

 

Fuelling a Bias: Having a small population and a relatively large and highly-industrialised economy that is entirely dependent on imported fossil fuels, Singapore is always ranked poorly when energy consumption is measured on a per capita basis.

SINGAPORE is either a model green city or a polluted hell hole, depending on who you believe.

Within the space of a week, two environment rankings have been released that could not have come up with two more different assessments of Singapore's environmental scorecard.

In Bangkok, the Greening Industry Network, in cooperation with Chulalongkorn University and the US-Asia Environmental Partnership, developed Gin-dex.

The index captures the synergy between economic and environmental improvement in each of the 36 countries ranked. After measuring and then ranking pollution emissions and energy use, Singapore emerged eighth in the list, which was topped by Japan.

At the other end was Russia.

Of Singapore's achievements, the report noted: 'Singapore is an advanced country. The type of technology industries use tends to be newer, more eco-friendly and produces much less waste than the older technology used in some other countries.'

The task force is also considering using Singapore as a model to show how the environment has to be dealt with.

But at the World Economic Forum in Davos this week, a very different picture will be painted of Singapore's environmental record.

According to the Environmental Sustainability Index or ESI, devised by the forum's Global Leaders of Tomorrow environment task force, Singapore is lumped together with Bangladesh, Iran, Algeria, Vietnam, Nigeria, Madagascar, Uganda, Malawi and Senegal - the 10 worst-performing countries in the environmental-sustainability index.

While the full report has not been released, it is believed that Singapore's low score was due partly to its unique geography, being a city-state with few or no natural resources.

When considering factors like vehicle population, the availability of freshwater resources, the extent of energy consumption and the level of industrial pollution, Singapore's low 'sustainability' scores are no surprise because of its small land area and small population, relative to an economy that is geared towards producing goods and services for export.

The methodology used favours large countries. And a country with a very poor environmental record but with substantial natural resources could well come out scoring high marks on this index.

So are we as bad as the ESI ranking or as good as the Gin-dex score?

Before coming to any conclusions, it may be worth looking at several other international environmental scorecards which assessed Singapore.

According to the 2000 Living Planet Report prepared by the Swiss-based World Wide Fund for Nature, Singapore is the world's second-largest consumer of natural resources, after the United Arab Emirates.

This finding was based largely on the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted as a result of energy consumption.

The WWF estimated Singapore's 1996 per capita C02 emissions from burning fossil fuels to be about 19 tonnes. The Environment Ministry's calculations, however, place the figure at 8.7 tonnes.

Again, the comparisons cast countries with small populations and that are heavily dependent on fossil fuels for their economies in a poor light.

And by looking at just how much is used and not how it is used, there is also no distinction made between wasteful consumption and an efficient use of resources.

But not all environmental rankings make this mistake.

In its assessment of 59 countries' environmental policy, the 2000 Global Competitiveness Report published by the World Economic Forum ranked the Republic second for the effectiveness of its environmental regulations and third in the enforcement of these regulations.

In terms of priority accorded to compliance with international environmental agreements, Singapore was ranked ninth; in the category of overall stringency of pollution regulations, Singapore came in 10th.

However, when it came to the national environmental performance ranking, the report decided to exclude Singapore entirely, because it is a city state and cannot be compared with other countries.

So if academics and analysts cannot agree upon a set of indicators that does not end up comparing apples and oranges, can businessmen be relied on to make an objective assessment about the quality of a country's environment, when deciding where to invest their money?

Last May, the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy published a report on the results of a survey on 'Pollution and other Environmental Problems' in Asian countries. The report was intended to provide an assessment of the relevance of environmental considerations to a company's decision to invest in a particular country.

The survey covered 12 Asian territories - China, Hongkong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam.

Singapore was given the top rating for the overall quality of its environment. It also topped the list in managing air pollution, traffic congestion and for its attractiveness for foreign direct investment.

For water pollution, Singapore was a close third behind Malaysia and Japan and for noise pollution, Singapore was a joint second with Japan, behind Malaysia.

Five rankings later, is the picture any clearer on just where Singapore stands?

Well, some things are certain. Measured against recognised international standards, like those of the United States' Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organisation, Singapore's air and water quality is comparable to that of some of the best cities in the world.

Refuse is removed and disposed of safely daily, and all waste water is collected back in sewers and treated and, increasingly now, even recycled.

But when it comes to energy consumption and efficiency, things get a little murky. This is because different countries and international agencies use different yardsticks to measure energy efficiency.

But in August last year, a major step was taken that will help set Singapore's record straight in the international arena.

To fulfil its obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Singapore submitted a 70-page report to the UN detailing, for the first time, its greenhouse-gas inventory and the measures being taken to keep the release of gases like carbon dioxide in check.

At least now, score keepers have an accurate source of data on Singapore when they are compiling information for yet another green index.

But will this mean Singapore will move up the ranks overnight in all the environmental indices? Unlikely.

Even with the most accurate data, Singapore's environmental performance will still be knocked if the consumption of natural resources is measured on a per capita basis rather than per dollar of GDP.

Singapore's environmental record is far from perfect. Room for improvement, there certainly is. But to lump the Republic among the world's 10 worst environmental polluters is simply ludicrous.

(The writer is an Assistant News Editor of The Straits Times.)