Fake islands are faced with severe environmental stresses from the moment they are created. It is no secret that the creation of the Dubai artificial islands and the constant environmental-mitigating interventions they require have been financed by UAE’s oil revenues.
Due to its strategic location in the middle of an oil-rich region, “Palm Jumeirah” indeed enjoyed a short-lived real estate success, but due to the oil price collapse, property prices have been reduced by 40% from its 2014 peak. Palm Islands could prove a timely warning for governments endorsing large-scale environmental destruction for unsustainable economic gains.
The Precautionary Principle
All major international environmental charters and treaties espouse the Precautionary Principle (German, Vorsorgeprinzip) of “first, do no harm”. The Precautionary Principle is meant to guide rational decision-making to ensure that the interactive elements of uncertainty and irreversibility are fully considered.
This is necessary to protect present and future generations from undue risks and harmful impacts arising from irresponsible institutional decision-making. The principle should be applied to all major projects with potentially serious and widespread environmental impacts, including coastal reclamation projects.
In Malaysia, the National Physical Plan (2010) contains clear policy statements forbidding coastal land reclamation for purposes other than the development of ports of strategic national importance. It also stipulates that coastal reclamation “shall not be permitted in or adjacent to sensitive ecosystems such as marine parks, mangroves, mudflats, coral reefs, seagrass beds, turtle landing sites and major tourism beaches”.
Despite these sound policy recommendations, there are at present more than 20 state-endorsed reclamation projects in Malaysia, either ongoing or in the pipeline.
When the map of these reclamation projects is superimposed over a map of future sea-level rise, the reclamation areas certainly appear at risk of frequent flooding or even submergence within a few short decades. Not only will the reclamation areas be vulnerable to sea-level rise caused by global warming, but the development of these projects are also themselves contributing significantly to accelerating climate change.
How much carbon emissions is too much?
The single most ambitious reclamation project in Malaysia so far is the 4,500-acre Penang South Reclamation (PSR), calculated to generate 3.2 million tonnes of carbon emissions per year, according to the “18 nasihat” issued by the National Physical Planning Council.
The carbon emissions generated annually by PSR will require 147 million trees to offset (based on one mature tree sequestering 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year). These figures are simply alarming for anyone concerned with the future of our planet, yet they seem to mean nothing to politicians.
The Penang government insists on going ahead with the PSR project even though it will severely disrupt the livelihoods of thousands of fishermen. The project will take advantage of the shallow sea in Teluk Kumbar, Kawasan Selatan (Penang Island South), displacing the “fishing commons” where fisherfolk have sought their livelihood for generations.
Pengkalan Permatang Damar Laut, Pengkalan Sungai Batu, Pengkalan Teluk Kumbar and Pengkalan Gertak Sanggul in Kawasan Selatan are the jetties at which the bulk of Penang’s wild-caught prawns, and much of its wild-caught fish are landed.
While it is generally true that global fisheries are declining, Teluk Kumbar bay, sheltered by Pulau Rimau and coral-rich Pulau Kendi, is still abundant with marine life. This area is frequented by fishing boats from other parts of Penang, and from Kuala Perlis to Pangkor in certain seasons.
In the first year of the PSR project, the developers will scrape away the fertile mudflats all along the coastline, deliberately destroying the natural ecosystem of Penang’s richest fishery.
A Threat to Food Security?
Sand-mining for the PSR project will threaten another 6,000 fishermen operating along the northern Perak coast. The resulting pollution threatens to jeopardise the “golden triangle” of brackish water aquaculture producing half of Peninsula Malaysia’s supply – Sungai Udang in Penang, Tanjung Piandang and Kuala Kurau, as well as the mangrove areas of Kuala Gula and Kuala Sepetang, all in Perak.
The effects on national food security and rising seafood prices will be hardest felt by Malaysia’s B40 population.
Before undertaking the PSR project, the Penang government should revisit the impacts of ongoing and past reclamation projects.
Professing to uphold the UN Sustainable Development Goals, including SDG 14 (Life Under Water), the Penang government would presumably be keen to learn about the true impacts of the massive Seri Tanjung Pinang 2 (STP2).
Despite precautions taken during the reclamation, marine water quality in the north of Penang island has deteriorated. The fishermen in Tanjung Tokong and Bagan Ajam report that their fish catch has dropped as much as 50% to 70% compared to their catch before STP2. Coastal pollution has caused our seas to be filled with swirling suspended sediments, jellyfish and sea urchins.
The seas around Tanjung Tokong and Gurney Drive should be cleaned up to the extent that fish populations recover, in order to restore the livelihoods of fishermen who received pittance (one-off payments in 2015 of RM15,000 for boat owners and RM2,000 for crew) for their ongoing losses.
On the other hand, if rehabilitation efforts of the waters are still wanting or cannot be undertaken successfully, then the only responsible thing for the Penang government to do would be to cancel all future reclamation projects.
Recommendations by Environment Department and agriculture minister
In a letter of 25 June 2019, the director-general of the Department of Environment (DoE) advised the Penang government that the Penang South Reclamation will “cause permanent and residual impacts on mudflat ecosystems, fishing grounds, turtle landing areas, and some coral reefs in Pulau Rimau… This permanent destruction will have a significant negative impact on fisheries resources, fisheries and the security of national food supply”.
The advice was ironically incorporated in the letter of approval for the PSR Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report, signed, incidentally, by the Director-General on his last day of work before retirement.
On 16 July 2019, the agriculture minister said in Parliament that the PSR project will affect 4,909 fishermen on the island and 511 marine aquaculture operators. The minister recommended mitigation measures to be implemented by the Penang state government “without fail”, such as gazetting the strip from Pulau Betong to Telok Bahang as a conservation zone and the Middle Bank as a fisheries-protected area.
Have these steps been taken?
The minister also required studies to be conducted on the impacts of noise population on fish due to the dredging and reclamation for PSR, as well as on prawn migration over a one-year cycle, and then to modify the island design to allow for unimpeded prawn migration.
All these conditions are already recorded in the Hansard, but one wonders if these studies are under way? And if it turns out that the island designs need to be modified, will revised hydrological studies be submitted to DoE?
The agriculture minister, who has repeatedly emphasised the need for Malaysia to reduce food imports, has acknowledged that “In principle, it is the responsibility of the agriculture and agro-based ministries to protect the marine resources and welfare of the fishermen.” He should, therefore, instruct his ministry and the fisheries development authority (Lembaga Kemajuan Ikan Malaysia) to whole-heartedly follow this policy rather than over-enthusiastically facilitate the Penang government’s agenda to obliterate marine resources and undermine the fishermen’s welfare.
Where will water supply come from, where will the sewage go?
Judging from the real estate sales of Forest City, Johor, most properties on Penang South Reclamation will be targeted at foreign nationals, especially China nationals.
The PSR EIA report presented the project timeline starting with the reclamation of Island B, but several weeks later a Bloomberg advertisement showed that Island A will proceed first. This indicates that PSR might still lack the detailed financial or physical planning conditions to make it “future-proof”.
The additional 400,000 population projected for the three new islands will further stretch Penang’s resources.
The 800,000 population on the already water-stressed Penang island will have to compete for precious water with the new, mainly foreign, residents, and this might mean critical water rationing. How will the additional water supply be secured? Will additional sewerage and landfill facilities be required and where will they be located?
Sign now, future generations might regret later
The Penang government has announced that it is in a hurry to sign the Project Delivery Partner (PDP) agreement with SRS Consortium for the implementation of the Penang Transport Master Plan (PTMP) and the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) project, just after Chinese New Year.
Therefore, it is our duty to remind them to heed the environmental warnings of the DoE and the agriculture minister, and to slam on the future-proof Precautionary Principle brakes.
Apparently, the Penang government’s existing letter of offer to the developers stipulates that SRS Consortium is required to obtain all the necessary approvals for various projects. As mentioned earlier, the DoE has approved the EIA for PSR on 25 June 2019.
However, the good fisherfolk of Penang have filed an appeal against the Director-General’s decision, under Section 35 (1) of the Environmental Quality Act 1974.
Before the appeal is heard and the decision obtained, the Penang government should respect the legal process and should not be taking steps to start the reclamation project.
Khoo Salma Nasution is vice-president of Penang Heritage Trust.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.